[auth48] Document intake questions about draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id

[[e-mail]]

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 receive a 
reply.  We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel that you 
need to make any updates to the document.  After we hear from you, your document 
will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our 
updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48).

Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at 
[e-mail].

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, 
WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information 
(e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in 
RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at 
<https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").

* Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that 
editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." 
or  "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used 
for token names." etc.)?


3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the
References section 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>.


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))?

* Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited 
the same way?


5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
document?