Hi Rishabh, Thank you for your reply! We will incorporate this feedback during the editing process.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 7, 2025, at 11:06 AM, Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sarah, > Please find replies inline @ [RP] below. > > Thanks, > Rishabh > > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 8:35 AM > To: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about > <draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22> > > Hi Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Sep 25, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[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 hear > > from you > > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a > > reply). Even > > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates > > to the > > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document > > will start > > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates > > during 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 References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > sections current? > > > [RP] Yes, they are. > > > > 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? > > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > > [RP] Some terminology refers to RFC 9524 and RFC 9256 > > > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field > > names > > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > > quotes; > > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > > > [RP] No. But we have tried to make some terms consistent with how they are > spelled in RFC 9524 and RFC 9256. > > > > > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > > are > > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > > [RP] No. > > > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > > document? > > > > [RP] No. > > > > > 5) This document is part of Cluster 556. > > > > * 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. > > [RP] Yes. draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22 is the basis of > draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24 and should be read first and assigned an > RFC number first. > > > * 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)? > > [RP] No. > > > > > > >> On Sep 25, 2025, at 4:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> Author(s), > >> > >> Your document draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22, which has been approved > >> for publication as > >> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > >> > >> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it > >> and have started working on it. > >> > >> If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > >> if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > >> please send us the file at this time by attaching it > >> in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > >> between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > >> > >> You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > >> Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > >> your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > >> we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > >> RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > >> steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. > >> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > >> (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). > >> > >> You can check the status of your document at > >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > >> > >> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > >> queue state (for more information about these states, please see > >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed > >> our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > >> to perform a final review of the document. > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> The RFC Editor Team > >> > > > > [EXTERNAL] -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
