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

[linchangwang <[e-mail]>]

Hi rfc-editor, Sarah,


Thanks for this mail.
Please find my replies inline.


Thanks,
Changwang (On behalf of co-authors)


发件人: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
发送时间: 2026年8月26日 5:22
收件人: linchangwang (RD) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id


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?


Changwang:  The text and the addresses are accurate.


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.)?


Changwang:  The terminology in this document should be consistent with  [RFC9256] , [RFC9830] and [RFC9857].


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>.


Changwang:  We agree with the standard updates for the references as proposed.


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?

Changwang:  There is no contentious text requiring special handling.


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

Changwang:  There are no other items the RPC should be aware of at this time.

Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。
禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。
如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited.
If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!