Hi Bernie, This is a friendly reminder that we are awaiting your approval for this document.
Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9787 Note that discussion regarding DKG’s proposal to update xml2rfc is still ongoing. — FILES (please refresh) — The files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787-lastdiff.html (last version to this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Jul 3, 2025, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> > wrote: > > Hi Alanna-- > > Thanks for the heads-up! I'll hold off on updating the artwork in > RFC-to-be 9788, as requested, until i hear back from you. > > Thanks for your attention to these documents! > > --dkg > > On Wed 2025-07-02 15:30:27 -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote: >> Hi DKG, >> >> Apologies for the delay. Your suggestion to update xml2rfc is being actively >> considered. >> >> Please hold off on updating the artwork in RFC-to-be 9788 until a decision >> has been made. >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/ap >> >>> On Jul 2, 2025, at 2:57 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri 2025-06-27 22:19:31 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >>>> I propose replacing ↧ and ⇩ with symbols from the BOX DRAWINGS range >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> The attached proposed XML file makes this substitution for the MIME tree >>>> diagrams. It will still render as misaligned, however, as long as the >>>> fix [0] is not applied to xml2rfc. >>>> >>>> If you think this is reasonable, let me know and i can try to make a >>>> comparable revision for RFC 9788. >>> >>> So far i've only heard back from Bernie about this change to the >>> codepoints used in the "ascii-art" MIME diagrams (and he approves). >>> Doing the same work for RFC-to-be 9788 is more substantial (because of >>> all the test vectors) but i'm inclined to go ahead and do it anyway in >>> the hopes that there will be no objections. >>> >>> If anyone is inclined to contest this change, please let me know so i >>> don't waste my time fixing up the other draft! >>> >>> And, if the RFC editor approves, i encourage you to update the xml >>> published at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9787.xml too. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> --dkg -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
