[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for the reminder

We are planning to reply by the end of this week

Italo

Il ven 5 giu 2026, 23:00 Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> ha
scritto:

> Hi Author(s),
>
> This is a second friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions
> below before continuing with the editing process for this document.
>
> If we do not hear back in the next week, we will continue with processing
> this document, but some of these questions may be repeated during Final
> Review.
>
> Thank you,
> Sarah Tarrant
> RFC Production Center
>
> > On May 29, 2026, at 11:11 AM, Sarah Tarrant <
> [e-mail]> 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 May 22, 2026, at 3:11 PM, [e-mail] 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
> >> [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>. 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)).
> >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be
> edited
> >> the same way?
> >>
> >>
> >> 5) This document contains sourcecode:
> >>
> >> * Does the sourcecode validate?
> >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or
> text
> >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct?
> >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about
> >> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types
> .)
> >>
> >>
> >> 6) This document is part of Cluster 517:
> >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/517/
> >>
> >> * 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://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters
> >> * For a list of all current clusters, see:
> >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/
> >>
> >>
> >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing
> this
> >> document?
> >>
> >
>
>