________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 9:43 AM
> 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 is still accurate? > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes, these are still accurate and current. > 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). > * 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.) This document attempts to comply with the HTTP Editorial Style Guide (https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide) and to match the formatting of the RFC 9110-9112. > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? The guidance in Section 7.1 and Section 8 has been the focus of substantive discussion, and represents the result of several iterations within the working group. > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? This document was prepared using kramdown-rfc. I wasn't able to figure out how to produce good hyperlinked references in that format. If some references would be better styled as hyperlinks, I am happy to accept that change. In the quoted sections of HTTP, I used direct (paragraph-targeted) URL hyperlinks to indicate the source of some block-quotes. If these can be converted to <relref> references, that might be preferable, but I am not aware of support for that capability in <relref> or <blockquote>. > 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 **) The words "necessary" and "sufficient" in Section 3 are emphasized (as intended) in the TXT output, but curiously are not emphasized in the HTML output. Perhaps this can be corrected. > 6) Because this document updates RFCs 9112 and 9298, please review > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: I do not believe the errata are relevant. --Ben Schwartz
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
