Hi Justin, Noted! Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 30, 2026, at 5:08 PM, Justin Iurman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RPC Team, > > We do not have specific guidance nor updates. More specifically, on point 4: > yes, the document matches the current guidance (YANG does validate, and > boilerplate is included in Security Considerations section). Please go ahead! > > Cheers, > Justin > > On 7/29/26 18:30, [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) Please consider whether any updates to the following are needed: >> - Authors' Addresses >> - Contributors >> - Acknowledgments >> 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) This document contains YANG. >> * Does it validate? >> * YANG requires certain reference entries >> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link >> above for more information) per RFC 9907 >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9907/>. >> Please confirm that this document matches the current guidance. >> 5) This document is part of Cluster 583 >> <https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/583/>. >> Please note that we intend to order the documents as follows unless you >> indicate otherwise: >> N: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity >> N+1: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang (this document) >> Is there any text that has been repeated or aligned with >> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity that >> should be edited in the same way? >> For more information about clusters, see: >> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters >> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? >> ----- >> Title : A YANG Data Model for In Situ Operations, >> Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Integrity-Protected Options >> Author(s) : Justin Iurman, >> Tianran Zhou >> Working Group Chair(s) : Marcus Ihlar, Thomas Graf >> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
