[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-v6ops-claton

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,
My apologies for the delay, I've been on vacation.

Please find the responses below.
Relative to the questions posed to us, I believe the answers are:

1) yes

2) terms should match 6877, no style guide, no further guidance

3) Sounds good.

4) no, no, no other than the old/new text blocks to be consistent with each
other as diff format

5) I've searched the .xml and could not find those elements, so I do not
think we are using them intentionally.

6) order not important, no additional consistency by editors required

7) well, we have no objections but the current document source is in
.xml....

8) yes, we are happy to do that.

9) no

Cheers, Jen Linkova

On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00 PM Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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 11:14 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 3:26 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 uses one or more of the following text styles.
> >> Are these elements used consistently?
> >>
> >> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `)
> >> * italics (<em/> or *)
> >> * bold (<strong/> or **)
> >>
> >>
> >> 6) This document is part of Cluster 525:
> >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/525/
> >>
> >> * 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)  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
> .
> >>
> >>
> >> 8) 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
> .
> >>
> >>
> >> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing
> this
> >> document?
> >>
> >
>
>