Great thanks. I will try to reply within a day of getting email. Dino
> On Nov 4, 2025, at 12:41 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Dino, > > Thank you for the speedy reply! You should get a notification of this > document moving from AUTH to EDIT soon. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Nov 4, 2025, at 12:14 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC >>> Editor queue! >> >> Thanks for the quick turnaround Sarah. You guys are great! >> >>> 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. >> >> Okay. >> >>> 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? >> >> Yes, it was recently updated with useful suggestions from Eliot (ISE). >> >>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? >> >> Yes, I believe so. >> >>> 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? >> >> Yes, most of the definitions assume knowledge of RFC9300 and RFC9301. >> >>> 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.) >> >> Yes, use the same format as RFC9300. >> >>> 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). >> >> They are all up to date and accept you updating if need be. >> >>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >> >> Okay. >> >>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >> >> Okay. >> >>> 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? >> >> No. All contentions has been resolved. >> >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >> >> There are bis documents pending in the working group, coming soon to WGLC. >> They are >> rfc6831bis, rfc8378bis, and rfc8060bis. We had them as references but point >> to the >> non-BIS versions since we believe this draft will be published before the WG >> finishes >> those drafts. >> >>> 6) This document contains sourcecode (or artwork that looks like >>> sourcecode?): >>> >>> * Are there any artwork elements that need to be formatted as sourcecode? >>> If so: >> >> No there isn't. >> >>> * 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.) >> >> No, I don't beleive so. >> >>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>> kramdown-rfc? >> >> Sorry no, I'm trying to retired LOL. >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>> AUTH48 in >>> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >>> experiment, >>> see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >> >> Same answer. :-) >> >> Thanks again, >> Dino >> >>> >>>> On Nov 4, 2025, at 7:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> The document draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-21 has >>>> changed from MISSREF*R(1G) state to EDIT state. We thought you'd like to >>>> know. >>>> You can also follow your document's state at >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>> For definitions of state names, please see >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/#state_def>. >>>> >>>> If you have questions, please send mail to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> The RFC Editor Team > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
