Hi Samuel, Thank you for your reply. We will make these updates during the editing process.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 22, 2025, at 3:45 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > • Abstract looks accurate to me. > Address for Andrew Stone can be updated to (since it was not filled in > current version at all): 600 March Road, Ottawa Ontario K2K 2T6 Canada > • No specific recommendations. Terminology section is following style of > a few other PCEP RFCs (e.g. RFC8231 or RFC8281), but individual abbreviations > were expanded based on comments/recommendations during IESG review. > • References reviewed and looks fine to me. > • Section 4.2 is updating multiple statements in RFC8664 and it is > describing important extension potentially impacting future documents in PCEP > WG. > • I’m not aware about anything else. > • Errata are not relevant. > > Regards, > Samuel > > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 21 October 2025 at 18:25 > To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Zoey Rose (atokar) > <[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: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > > 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 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? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > * 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.) > > > 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully 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>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > 6) Because this document updates RFCs 8664 and 9603, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 8664 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8664) > > > > On Oct 21, 2025, at 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, 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 > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
