Hi Rishabh,

Thank you for your reply!

Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Jan 26, 2026, at 5:09 PM, Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Sarah,
> Please find responses inline @ [RP]
> 
> Thank you,
> Rishabh.
> 
> From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]>
> Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 at 1:22 PM
> To: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Document intake questions about 
> <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-18>
> 
> 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?
> [RP] Yes, it is.
> 
> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
> sections current?
> [RP] Yes. But I do notice there are two full-stops at the end of the sentence 
> in the Acknowledgements section.
> 
> 
> 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.)
> 
> [RP] This document uses terminology from draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22 
> which is in the same cluster in the RFC editor queue, which in turn uses 
> terminology from RFC 9524. This document also uses terminology from RFC 6513. 
> 6514. 7432 and 7988. The capitalization and formatting of these terms should 
> match the source document.
> 
> 
> 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 requires special handling? For example:
> *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted?
> *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such
> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)).
> 
> [RP] Yes, implementation Status (Section 5) has to be removed.
> 
> *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited
> the same way?
> 
> 
> 5) This document is part of Cluster 556:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C556
> 
> * 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.
> 
> [RP] This document is based on draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22 and therefore 
> that document needs to be understood first and assigned an RFC number before 
> the document.
>   
> * 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
> 
> 
> 6) Because this document updates RFCs 6514 and 7988, please review
> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this
> document or are not relevant:
> 
> * RFC 6514 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6514)
> 
> [RP] Errata reported for RFC 6514 are not relevant for this document.
> 
> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
> document?
> 
> [RP] No
> 
> > On Jan 26, 2026, at 3:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Author(s),
> >
> > Your document draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-18, 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
> >
> 
> [EXTERNAL]

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to