Hi Kent, No worries! Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 4, 2025, at 3:21 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Back from the Thanksgiving holiday, sorry for the delay. > Responses to your comments below! > > Kent > > > >> On Dec 1, 2025, at 3:20 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Author(s), >> >> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below >> before continuing with the editing process for this document. >> >> Thank you, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 13, 2025, at 3:00 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 Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? > > All of the above are accurate. > > One nit found in the Abstract and Introduction: > > OLD: Both modules support both > NEW: These modules support both > > Fixed in the just uploaded -45 document. > > >>> 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.) > > This document is part of a suite of documents mentioned in the Introduction. > It should match the style presented in those other documents. > > This document uses YANG, for which guidance in provided in RFC 8407. Whilst > there are many stylistic recommendation, a prevailing recommendation is to > use hyphen-separation lowercase field names. > > >>> 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. > > I installed idnits3. It threw numerous errors. I filed some issues: > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/246 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/247 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/248 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/249 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/250 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/251 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/252 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/253 > - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/254 > > > In the end, the only valid issue is that the document contains non-ASCII > UTF8. This is on-purpose, as the UTF8 is used in the Acknowledgements > section, for names containing non-ASCII characters. > > >>> 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 sections need to be handled extra cautiously. > > >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? > > This document depends on draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server that, whilst > in the RFC Editor queue, is currently having an additional expert review. > This should clear shortly. It is unknown (but unlikely) that there will be > an impact to this document. > > >>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 463. >>> >>> * 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/ >>> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > The Introduction section identifies this document being part of a suite of > documents. A dependency diagram is provided. Generally speaking, starting > with the "root" document (RFC 9640) and working towards this document would > be logical. > > This document and draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server are near twins, > the scope is the same, with the only difference being the protocol (NETCONF > vs RESTCONF). Sections are very much the same across these two documents, > down to paragraphs being nearly identical. > > >>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>> kramdown-rfc? >>> 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. > > I am not interested in kramdown-rfc. Whilst I like Markdown, and use it > extensively for production documentation, I am only interested in the XML > format for RFCs because it is the native format. > > >>> 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. > > This would be okay. I imagine using a GitHub PR being more expedient than > the (long) email messages used to date. > > Kent // author > > > >>>> On Nov 13, 2025, at 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server-44, 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]
