Sarah: I compiled the ASN.1 module with no errors.
Russ > On Jan 7, 2026, at 12:41 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Oliver, > > My apologies for not including this in the intake form, but I have some > additional questions about the sourcecode in the XML file: > > * 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 types: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) Note that > one sourcecode element in the XML does not have a specified type. > * Regarding the sourcecode types, "csv" is not included in the list of > acceptable types. Are you requesting that we ask for it to be added to the > list? > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 7, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Oliver, >> >> Thank you for your reply! >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 5:51 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, all, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay, I'm back from my time off now. Responses to questions >>> are inline. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Oliver >>> >>> On 12/22/25 6:10 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>> Hi Randy, >>>> Sending in response to your question: >>>>> hmmm. both russ and i said ok to the iana reg change. >>>>> >>>>> so could you whack me with a clue bat with exactly what you await? >>>> We are looking out for the authors' responses to the Intake Form, included >>>> here: >>>>> 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? >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> This document is related to RFC8805 and RFC9632. >>> >>>>> * 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.) >>> >>> We write the term "prefixlen" in all lower case throughout the document, >>> with the exception of the "Prefixlen" keyword as part of the "remarks:" >>> field. >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>>> this >>>>> document? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>>> >>>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>> >>> Yes, I hope so. >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> mornin'sarah, >>>>> >>>>>> Now we just need answers to the Intake Form before proceeding with >>>>>> this draft. >>>>> >>>>> i am leaving that to the primary author, oliver. i just stuck my nose >>>>> in to smooth a process gl!tch. >>>>> >>>>> randy >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
