Hi Kent, Just checking in on the status of the aforementioned "snafu" and 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 Jan 6, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > This draft hit a snafu during the IANA review. > > Worst case is that a rather large edit will be made that will impact various > sections including the Abstract and Introduction. I've been waiting for the > snafu to resolve before replying to your message below, but it seems that the > Winter Holidays slowed things down. I just pinged some of the blocking > folks, so hopefully a resolution will come soon. > > Please note that, if the "large edit" mentioned above is needed, > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server MAY be affected. I believe that it > is in the same Cluster as this draft. > > Kent // author > > > >> On Jan 5, 2026, at 10:50 AM, 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 Dec 19, 2025, at 4:29 PM, [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? >>> >>> >>> 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.) >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> 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 >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
