Hi Greg, Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 30, 2025, at 5:31 PM, Greg White <[email protected]> wrote: > > Responses below. > > On 10/28/25, 2:53 PM, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Hello Authors, > > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the answers below. > > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > >> On Oct 21, 2025, at 9:51 AM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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? > > Yes > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > Yes > >> >> >> 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). > > Perhaps RFCs 9330/9331/9332 > >> * 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> >> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>>. You can also help the >> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>> >> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >> >> > > All fine. > >> 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? >> >> > Nothing notable. > > >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > The "Implementation Status" section is out-of-date (there are now more > implementations beyond those listed in the text underneath Table 1). It is > unclear to me whether there is value in making an update that points to a > specific number of implementations. Perhaps it could be changed as follows: > Current: " and one CMTS implementation by a third manufacturer." > Proposed: " and several CMTS implementations by other manufacturers." > > >> >> >> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >> >> * Does the sourcecode validate? >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >> sourcecode types.) >> > > The sourcecode in this document is pseudocode, and so will not validate. > > >> >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 350. >> >> * 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://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/> >> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php >> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php> >> > > draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb should precede this one. > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
