Hello Sarah, Thank you for your message, please find my answer to questions below inline:
Best regards, Zhuoyao -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 2:03 PM To: Zhuoyao Lin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-augmentedby-17> 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 Mar 2, 2026, at 4:07 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected]. > > 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? Yes > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes > > > 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? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this > document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). The terminology from [RFC8525] is used in this document The term "client" is used as defined in [RFC6241] for NETCONF and [RFC8040] for RESTCONF. The term "YANG schema tree" is used as defined in Section 3 of [RFC7950] The term Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) is used as defined in [RFC8342] Tree diagrams in this document use the notations defined in [RFC8340] > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., > field names should have initial capitalization; parameter names should > be in double quotes; <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > ‘YANG’ should be capitalized when used in ‘YANG module’ ‘YANG library’ ‘YANG schema’ 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). Please do not updated reference to RFC7895 which is updated by RFC8525(also used in this document) as we need both of them. > > * 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? No > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked > as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). Yes. 1) Note in discussion Venues 2) Section 6. Implementation Status 3 ) Appendix B > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be > edited the same way? No > > > 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 **) They are only used where they have been cited. > > > 6) 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.) Source code is validate. But the section that cited source code is to be removed, which is section 6 Implementation Status. > > > 7) Because this document updates RFC 8525, please review the reported > errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this document > or are not relevant: > > * RFC 8525 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8525) It is not relevant. > > > 8) 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. No > > > 9) 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 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. No > > > 10) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while > editing this document? There are following places that require update when RFC number is assigned for this document: 1) In section 4.1.2 in the ‘revision 2025-05-28’, the reference should be updated with the assigned RFC number. 2) In Section 8 IANA Considerations, the reference should be updated with the assigned RFC number. > >> On Mar 2, 2026, at 4:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-augmentedby-17, 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 >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
