[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sergio,

Thank you for letting me know! I'll be on the lookout for your replies.

Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Jun 8, 2026, at 2:55 AM, Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> thanks for the reminder!
> 
> We, the co-authors, will send a reply soon - we have a meeting next Tue where we will briefly discuss the answers to your questions below, together with your question about draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sergio (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:00 PM
>> To: Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> Dieter Beller (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; esther.lerouzic
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gunter van de
>> Velde (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; rfc-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis
>> 
>> 
>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
>> or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 11:12 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 3:16 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhttpwg
>> .org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle-
>> guide&data=05%7C02%7Csergio.belotti%40nokia.com%7C93f2295c835e44363
>> 1aa08dec3457b77%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C63
>> 9162900360097453%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy
>> dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3
>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=B%2BAYu5SJY0iDxXHPBKzUW%2FO4RQJOLoxA
>> It5QDzI7K5E%3D&reserved=0>.").
>>>> * 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?