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: 
 <PAVPR07MB9359AD3343233BD850479FE9911C2@PAVPR07MB9359.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:22:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EC2390C2-32BC-41E5-8FCB-E7A0649EBAE3@staff.rfc-editor.org>
References: <177948099510.15.1379234059862072105@rfc-editor.org>
 <734A6D62-ED46-448D-A648-D23DB5CBD2E4@staff.rfc-editor.org>
 <01619153-69B4-47D8-8C5C-CABF75A5AAC7@staff.rfc-editor.org>
 <PAVPR07MB9359AD3343233BD850479FE9911C2@PAVPR07MB9359.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Sergio Belotti (Nokia)" <sergio.belotti@nokia.com>
Message-ID-Hash: LNLFJPSZWF3WMGPP6QTG2YBYXB3E2WU3
CC: "italo.busi@gmail.com" <italo.busi@gmail.com>,
 "Dieter Beller (Nokia)" <dieter.beller@nokia.com>,
 "esther.lerouzic" <esther.lerouzic@orange.com>,
 "aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com" <aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com>,
 "ketant.ietf@gmail.com" <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>,
 "james.n.guichard@futurewei.com" <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>,
 "Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>,
 "dceccare@cisco.com" <dceccare@cisco.com>,
 "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
 "auth48archive@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-rfc9093-bis?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/xGhLaNVs9Z9n2xtbx2nnDM0GE3M>

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=E2=80=AFAM, Sergio Belotti (Nokia) =
<sergio.belotti@nokia.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Sarah,
>=20
> thanks for the reminder!
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Sergio (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@staff.rfc-editor.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:00 PM
>> To: Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <sergio.belotti@nokia.com>; =
italo.busi@gmail.com;
>> Dieter Beller (Nokia) <dieter.beller@nokia.com>; esther.lerouzic
>> <esther.lerouzic@orange.com>; aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com
>> Cc: ketant.ietf@gmail.com; james.n.guichard@futurewei.com; Gunter van =
de
>> Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>; dceccare@cisco.com; =
rfc-
>> editor@rfc-editor.org; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about =
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hi Author(s),
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Thank you,
>> Sarah Tarrant
>> RFC Production Center
>>=20
>>> On May 29, 2026, at 11:12=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
>>> Thank you,
>>> Sarah Tarrant
>>> RFC Production Center
>>>=20
>>>> On May 22, 2026, at 3:16=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Author(s),
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=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 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.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at
>>>> 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, please review the current version of the =
document:
>>>>=20
>>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
>>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
>>>> sections current?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with =
editing
>>>> your document. For example:
>>>>=20
>>>> * 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
>>>>=20
>> =
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhttpw=
g
>> .org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle-
>> guide&data=3D05%7C02%7Csergio.belotti%40nokia.com%7C93f2295c835e44363
>> 1aa08dec3457b77%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C63
>> 9162900360097453%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy
>> dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3
>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3DB%2BAYu5SJY0iDxXHPBKzUW%2FO4RQJOLoxA
>> It5QDzI7K5E%3D&reserved=3D0>.").
>>>> * 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.)?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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:
>>>>=20
>>>> * 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).
>>>>=20
>>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be
>>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D.
>>>>=20
>>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been
>>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=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 (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)).
>>>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be
>>>> edited the same way?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 5) This document contains sourcecode:
>>>>=20
>>>> * 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=3Dsourcecode-types.)
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 517:
>>>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/517/
>>>>=20
>>>> * 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/
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while
>>>> editing this document?