Hi Kent, Very good! We're just waiting on AD approval.
In the meantime, could you answer the questions we had on the intake form? > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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 Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 3, 2026, at 11:38 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Sorry for the delay! Good news, everything is sorted out now in -32. > > FWIW, the net-net is: > > - one YANG module (ietf-uri) was removed. > - the ietf-uri contents were moved into the ietf-http-client module. > - this update has zero impact on other/downstream/consuming modules. > - specifically, draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server is unaffected. > > Cheers, > Kent > > >> On Feb 2, 2026, at 3:46 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Kent, >> >> Just checking in to see how this draft is going. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 15, 2026, at 3:54 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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]
