Hi Alanna Please be informed that DKG will send a update shortly that contains fixes for issues I raised during my AUTH48 review.
cheers Bernie On 10.07.25 21:20, Alanna Paloma wrote: > 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
sender_key.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
