- RG last call initiated on18/12/2025, concluded on 25/01/2026 (but one
positive review late) - The document received several 6 reviews (from non
authors) and comments during the last call period. The review comments and
replies from the authors are available in the NMRG mailing list archives
(subject line: “RG last call for draft-irtf-nmrg-network-digital-twin-arch”) -
Document versions and diffs are available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-network-digital-twin-arch -
Authors have been diligent and thorough in addressing comments raised by the RG
through the different versions as RG document (from -00 to current -012),
seeking consensus and technical improvement of the content and form. - After
conclusion of the RG last call, authors have addressed all pending comments.
The document is stable; no oppositions or disagreements from the RG
participants on the publication of this work as an IRTF RFC have been expressed
during and after the RG last call. The current version of the document
represents the consensus of the RG. - The document will have to be updated
(e.g. in IRSG review) to comply with guidelines for IRTF RFCs, check
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc-style-guide/, specifically on the
authorship
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/SHM7dHZd_S1a-CkW2JCBvxdKmcs/
- There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as the product of
the RG - There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in the
introduction) describing the level of support for publication. Example text
might read: "this document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG" or "the
views in this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the
RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published". - The
breadth of review the document has received must also be noted. For example,
was this document read by all the active contributors, only three people, or
folks who are not "in" the RG but are expert in the area? - It must also be
very clear throughout the document that it is not an IETF product and is not a
standard.
The authors agreed to update the document to address the above comment when the
document will enter IRSG review.