Hi Samuel, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 14, 2026, at 3:02 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RFC Editor team, > > Thank you for the note. Please find responses below. > > 1) Current text > > The Abstract is still accurate. > > The Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections should be > up to date. > Please note that the document originally had more than five authors. To > follow the IETF guidance on the maximum number of > listed authors, only the two editors are listed in the Authors’ Addresses > section, and the remaining original authors were moved to the > Contributors section. As noted in the document, those individuals should > still be considered co-authors of this document. > > 2) Style information > > The document follows PCE WG / PCEP terminology and style, especially the > terminology used in RFC 5440, RFC 8231, RFC 9256, RFC 9862, and RFC 9863. > > Flag names are generally written as “R-flag”, “O-flag”, “N-flag”, etc. SR > Policy terms such as “Candidate Path”, “Composite Candidate Path”, and > “Segment List” should remain consistent with RFC 9256 / RFC 9862. > > 3) References > > I ran idnits on draft-ietf-pce-multipath-29 and it reported no reference > errors. > > 4) Special handling > > Section 6, “Implementation Status”, is marked for removal before publication. > Otherwise I’m not aware about any text/section that requires special handling. > > 5) Cluster 496 > > For this document, no special reading order is required beyond normal > reference handling. The PCEPS/TLS 1.3 document in the cluster is a > normative reference. > > 6) Other notes > > Nothing else from our side at this time. > > Thanks a lot, > Samuel > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 7 July 2026 at 19:02 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-pce-multipath > > 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 is part of Cluster 496: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/496/ > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. > If order is not important, please let us know. > > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or > Security Considerations)? > > * For more information about clusters, see: > https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters > > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/ > > > 6) 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]
