Hi Paul, We have updated our files with the suggested updates. Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the document in its current form.
We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. --FILES-- Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9839 Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Aug 15, 2025, at 11:06 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the edits on this document! Comments below. > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for use on _https://www.rfc-editor.org/search --> > > “Unicode”, “UTF-8”, “Surrogates”, “Noncharacters”, “Control characters” > >> 2) <!--[rfced] FYI: In Section 2, we updated the enlarged "⨉" to "*" >> for multiplication as the enlarged "⨉" is not used in the RFC >> Series. If "x" (lowercase) is preferred instead of "*", please >> let us know. >> >> Original: >> There are 1,114,112 (17 ⨉ 2^16) code points;... >> >> Current: >> There are 1,114,112 (17 * 2^16) code points;... >> --> > > Sure. > >> 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence - does option A or B capture >> the intended meaning, or do you prefer otherwise? >> >> Original: >> Unicode describes a variety of encoding forms, ways to marshal code >> points into byte sequences. >> >> Perhaps A: >> Unicode describes a variety of encoding forms and ways to >> marshal code points into byte sequences. >> >> Perhaps B: >> Unicode describes a variety of encoding forms that can be used to >> marshal code points into byte sequences. >> --> > > We prefer option B. > >> 4) <!--[rfced] AD: As requested by the authors, we made the following >> update within the sourcecode in Section 2 (see the last >> line). Please review and provide your approval of this change. >> >> Original: >> xml-character = >> %x9 / %xA / %xD / ; useful controls >> %x20-D7FF / ; exclude surrogates >> %xE000-FFFD / ; exclude FFFE and FFFF nonchars >> %x100000-10FFFF >> >> Current: >> xml-character = >> %x9 / %xA / %xD / ; useful controls >> %x20-D7FF / ; exclude surrogates >> %xE000-FFFD / ; exclude FFFE and FFFF nonchars >> %x10000-10FFFF >> --> > > This is correct. We even asked a careful external reviewer to check, and he > approved as well. > >> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI: As requested by the authors, we made the following >> update in Section 6: >> >> Original: >> ...the example would remain a conforming JSON Text but... >> >> Current: >> ...the example would remain a conforming JSON text but... >> --> > > This is correct. > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element >> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred >> values for "type" >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) >> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. >> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >> --> > > They are all correct. > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm >> that >> no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the >> comments will be deleted prior to publication. >> --> > > All of the comments in the XML appear in this message. :-) > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following >> abbreviations >> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> >> Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) >> Internet JSON (I-JSON) >> --> > > They are fine. > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> > > We have no text changes for inclusivity after looking at that document. > > We have one minor editorial change we would like to request: > > OLD: > These issues, among many others, led to many efforts by the Unicode > Consortium, > NEW: > These issues, among many others, led to efforts by the Unicode Consortium, > > > --Paul Hoffman > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
