Editors, Thank you for taking this work on; our numbered responses are below prefixed with "BS1>".
1) Updates during Last Call. * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? BS1> Yes, it has been kept up-to-date. * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections current? BS1> Yes, these are all current. 2) Style information. BS1> There is no overall special style being followed by this doc. Some inherited terminology is explicitly listed and cited in Section 1.1. Because this is not a protocol document, there are no technical fields or parameters used in this document with specific format or capitalization. Some internal terms use italics to differentiate their use, and the requirements under Section 4 use "tt" to distinguish their labels. 3) Reference updates. BS1> All of these updates sound good. More specifically: a) It may be best to replace the reference to [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis] with a reference to [RFC5706] to avoid the still-in-draft informative document. We do not depend on any of the "bis" updates for this reference. b) The referenced document [I-D.ietf-tvr-schedule-yang] is already in the Editor's queue, so to avoid a stale reference it would be good for this document to be added to a cluster depending on that tvr-schedule-yang document. Those changes would allow this document to not reference any internet drafts. 4) Special handling. BS1> I don't think there are any contentious sections. The frontmatter note "About This Document" will need to be removed before publication. The requirements under Section 4 should be edited and formatted the same way; they are currently marked up as definition lists. 5) Existing text styles. BS1> I believe that the document already uses markup consistently. 6) Pilot for kramdown-rfc. BS1> This document is edited in XML, so this does not apply. 7) Pilot for GitHub final review. BS1> Yes, we would like to perform final review with GitHub. The applicable author and shepherd accounts follow, I do not know of our AD account name. danielkinguk luismcontreras BrianSipos zhangli-abcd edbirrane 8) I do not believe there are any other topics for the editors. Thanks, Brian S. for the authors. On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 5:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Author(s), > > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC > Editor queue! > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working > with you > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce > processing time > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. > Please confer > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in > a > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline > communication. > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to > this > message. > > As you read through the rest of this email: > > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to > make those > changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation > of diffs, > which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc > shepherds). > > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with > any > applicable rationale/comments. > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we > receive a > reply. We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel > that you > need to make any updates to the document. After we hear from you, your > document > will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and > approve our > updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48). > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at > [email protected]. > > Thank you! > The RPC Team > > -- > > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during > Last Call, > please review the current version of the document: > > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > > > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your > document. For example: > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, > WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information > (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in > RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at > <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). > > * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that > editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial > capitalization." > or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used > for token names." etc.)? > > > 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the > References section with the following in mind. Note that we will > update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > (RFC Style Guide). > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. > > > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was > drafted? > > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as > such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? > > > 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. > Are these elements used consistently? > > * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) > * italics (<em/> or *) > * bold (<strong/> or **) > > > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. > For more > information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing > Final Review > in GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or > document > shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test > . > > > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
