Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@staff.rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <2B286519-E9F0-42B7-AD84-1F9152000619@staff.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:00:02 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8B47B50F-221F-4C31-BBAA-D211ABD56C91@staff.rfc-editor.org>
References: <177948029609.17.3440517166628572406@rfc-editor.org>
 <2B286519-E9F0-42B7-AD84-1F9152000619@staff.rfc-editor.org>
To: zhenghaomian@huawei.com,
 italo.busi@gmail.com
Message-ID-Hash: DRGUHEXMAYY2FHV4AEFFIPT2DUH3AHGQ
CC: ketant.ietf@gmail.com, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com,
 gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com, d.king@lancaster.ac.uk,
 rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bauth48=5D_Re=3A_Document_intake_questions_about_draft-ietf-ccam?=
	=?utf-8?q?p-layer1-types?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/hGLDiGkkKVU22lncqfru-z0ohW0>

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.=20

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 11:10=E2=80=AFAM, Sarah Tarrant =
<starrant@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Author(s),
>=20
> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions =
below before continuing with the editing process for this document.=20
>=20
> Thank you,
> Sarah Tarrant
> RFC Production Center
>=20
>> On May 22, 2026, at 3:04=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>>=20
>> Author(s),=20
>>=20
>> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC =
Editor queue! =20
>> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to =
working with you=20
>> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce =
processing time=20
>> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. =
Please confer=20
>> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document =
is in a=20
>> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline =
communication.=20
>> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply =
to this=20
>> message.
>>=20
>> As you read through the rest of this email:
>>=20
>> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you =
to make those=20
>> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy =
creation of diffs,=20
>> 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=20
>> applicable rationale/comments.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we =
hear from you=20
>> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a =
reply). Even=20
>> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any =
updates to the=20
>> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your =
document will start=20
>> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our =
updates=20
>> during AUTH48.
>>=20
>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at=20
>> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.
>>=20
>> Thank you!
>> The RPC Team
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document =
during Last Call,=20
>> please review the current version of the document:=20
>>=20
>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments=20
>> sections current?
>>=20
>>=20
>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing =
your=20
>> document. For example:
>>=20
>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another =
document,=20
>> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that =
information=20
>> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in=20=

>> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at=20
>> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").
>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms =
that=20
>> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial =
capitalization."=20
>> or  "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be =
used=20
>> for token names." etc.)?
>>=20
>>=20
>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the
>> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will=20
>> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time:
>>=20
>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the =
current=20
>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322=20
>> (RFC Style Guide).
>>=20
>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be=20=

>> updated to point to the replacement I-D.
>>=20
>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been=20
>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
>>=20
>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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=20
>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)).
>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be =
edited=20
>> the same way?
>>=20
>>=20
>> 5) This document contains sourcecode:=20
>>=20
>> * Does the sourcecode validate?
>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references =
and/or text=20
>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct?
>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about=20=

>> types: =
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=3Dsourcecode-types.)
>>=20
>>=20
>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 517:
>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/517/=20
>>=20
>> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there =
a=20
>> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, =
please provide=20
>> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents =
accordingly.=20
>> If order is not important, please let us know.=20
>> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster =
document that=20
>> should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory =
text or=20
>> Security Considerations)?
>> * For more information about clusters, see:=20
>> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters
>> * For a list of all current clusters, see:=20
>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/
>>=20
>>=20
>> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while =
editing this=20
>> document?
>>=20
>=20