Hi Sreekanth, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 12:11 AM, Sreekanth Narayanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi RPC Team, > > Please see my answers in-line. > > Thanks > Sreekanth > > On Tuesday, January 6th, 2026 at 1:29 AM, 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? >> > > [SN]: Yes, the abstract is accurate. The author addresses, contributors and > acknowledgements are up-to-date. > >> >> 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.) >> >> > > [SN]: No special styling information. > >> >> 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. > > [SN]: Acknowledged. > >> >> >> 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? >> > > [SN]: No, there's no text in the document that needs extra caution. > >> >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? >> > > [SN]: Nothing additional needed. > >> >> 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 >> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> > > [SN]: Sourcecode in this draft is a YANG module. Yes it validates using pyang. > The Security and IANA considerations include text regarding the YANG module. > >> >> 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. >> > > [SN]: No. > >> >> 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. > > [SN]: Yes, I'd like to participate in this pilot test as I'm familiar with > Github > and used it for this ID. > >> >>> On Jan 5, 2026, at 1:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-37, 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]
