On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:22 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 still accurate?
Yes. > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes. > 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? No. > 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.) Many of the references to "eap.arpa" have a trailing "." when they are not at the end of a sentence. See Section 2 for an explanation as to why. The uses of "eap.arpa" in the text should follow the explanations given in Section 2. > 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? No. > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? No. > > 5) Because this document updates RFCs 5216, 9140, and 9190, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 5216 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5216) > * RFC 9190 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9190) None of the errata are relevant for this document. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
