Hi Wang, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 7, 2026, at 9:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Dear RPC Team, > > Thanks for your information! After discussing with co-authors, we think the > current content of this document do not need any update. > And for the questions, please see the in-line replies with [WW]. > > Best Regards,王巍 Wang Wei > +86-010-5090-2397 > +86-177-7809-6050 > [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 中国电信股份有限公司研究院 > Research Institue of China Telecom Corporation Limited > 北京市昌平区北七家镇未来科技城南区中国电信北京信息科技创新园 > 邮编：102209 > From: 【外部账号】 > Date: 2026-07-08 04:20 > To: wangw36; wangaj3; rainsword.wang; hayabusagsm; jie.dong > CC: gunter.van_de_velde; keyur; james.n.guichard; idr-chairs; rfc-editor; > ketant.ietf; rtg-ads; auth48archive > Subject: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf > 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? > [WW]: Yes. > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections > current? > [WW]: Yes, the information provided is accurate. > 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>."). > [WW]: This document's terminology should match VPN terminology in RFC4364. > * 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.)? > [WW]: No. > 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>. > [WW]: We have checked all references and ensure there is no outdated RFC. > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > [WW]: No. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > [WW]: No. > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? > [WW]: No. > 5) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code > snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's XML file). > See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. > * Does it validate? > [WW]: All codes in this document are pseudocode, which are used to outline > the processing on the sender and receiver of VPN Prefix ORF entry. > * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries > and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link above > for more information). Please confirm that this document matches the current > guidance for the language type. > [WW]: This document follows XML syntax. > * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document, please > let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element for each > module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > [WW]: The pseudocode in this document is C language style. > 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. > [WW]: No, thanks.. > 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. > [WW]: No, thanks. > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > [WW]: No. Thank you very much in advance! -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
