Hi Kent, Well, I'm sorry to hear that that has been so frustrating.
Do you expect to post a version update with that previous solution? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 15, 2026, at 12:01 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I'm still stuck on responses from others, but I think that I'll will give up > hope for an agreement there, and instead move the draft's solution back to a > previously agreed solution (note: all this happened in the IESG review > stage). > > FWIW, I'm miffed that all this didn't get sussed out before (e.g, during the > WGLC) :mad: > > Kent // author > > >> On Jan 12, 2026, at 4:57 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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]
