[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-09>

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

[Including Vinod's new email address]

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 Apr 29, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[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) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in kramdown-rfc?
> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For more
> information about this experiment, see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc.
> 
> 
> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 in 
> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or document 
> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test.
> 
> 
> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
> document? 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2026, at 8:55 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> Author(s),
>> 
>> Your document draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-09, 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
>> 
>