Hi, RPC team! Please refer to the inline text enclosed by <NAT></NAT>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 AM <[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? > > <NAT> Yes. The abstract is up to date in this version. The authors' addresses are also updated since -02. The corresponding sections are also updated. </NAT> > 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>."). > > <NAT> Since this is a BGP-related document, some of the terminology is based on RFC 4271. </NAT> > * 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.)? > > <NAT> Yes. The field names should have initial capitalization. </NAT> > > 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? > > <NAT> No. </NAT> > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as > such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > > <NAT> No. </NAT> > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? > > <NAT> No. </NAT> > > 5) Because this document obsoletes RFC 4360, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 4360 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc4360) > > <NAT> Yes. All verified errata have been addressed. </NAT> > > 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. > > <NAT> Not this time. The document has been migrated from the text version to the RFCXML version directly. </NAT> > > 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 > . > > <NAT> Yes, please. Authors: sriharisangli (Srihari R. Sangli) PyxisLX (Nat Kao) AD: ketant-ietf (Ketan Talaulikar) Shepherd: keyur-arrcus (Keyur Patel) </NAT> > > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > <NAT> No. </NAT> If there's anything unclear, please let me know. Many Thanks! Nat
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
