Editors and AD, For my 3.a. comment, yes I think it's cleaner to reference just RFC 5706 since the difference is immaterial to this document and somewhat "cleaner" to not reference an internet draft which is still in its WG editing. For 3.b. comment, yes this is my preference to cluster with tvr-schedule-yang. I am assuming that document does not or will not have any delays in editing which would slow this one down. Again, my preference being a "cleaner" outcome for this document to not reference internet drafts unnecessarily.
Thanks, Brian S. On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 9:54 AM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On second look, I have a couple followup questions regarding your comments > to question 3. > > Since the references are informative, would you like us to update > I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis to RFC 5706? > > Also, would you like this draft to be clustered with > I-D.ietf-tvr-schedule-yang? That way, these two drafts would travel > together during the editing and publication process. > > Please let us know if this would be helpful. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Jul 8, 2026, at 12:30 PM, Sarah Tarrant < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Thank you for your reply! > > > > Regarding your comments to question 3, please discuss this matter with > your AD and Document Shepherd. That would be a big change at this stage > that would require their approval and a new version. > > > > Sincerely, > > Sarah Tarrant > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Jul 8, 2026, at 10:34 AM, Brian Sipos <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> danielkinguk > >> luismcontreras > >> BrianSipos > >> zhangli-abcd > >> edbirrane > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
