On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 2:51 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2025, at 06:41, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to > make those > > changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy > creation of diffs, > > which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc > shepherds). > > This was discussed on the RPC call today. These changes would cause a > large amount of hassle because this is not an IETF stream document. > > Here is the set of changes we request to be made before AUTH84; please let > us know if you have any questions. > > Section 1.3.1 and Section 7.6 say "...to the greatest extent possible." > This should be clarified as "...to the greatest extent possible, as > described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720]." > > The draft ignores the fact that RFC 7990 was obsoleted by RFC 9720. This > changes the following: > > - The "updates" list is currently "7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, > 7996, 7997, 8729", but should instead be "7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, > 7996, 7997, 8729, 9720". This appears in the document header and in the > abstract. > > - Section 1.5 should read: > All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in > [RFC7991], [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996], and > [RFC7997] are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)". > > > 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 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? > > 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 make very precise updates to RFC 9280. As such, > there should be no changes in the terminology or capitalization or > formatting beyond what is in the draft. > > > 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with > > the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we > > hear otherwise at this time: > > > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current > > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > > (RFC Style Guide). > > > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > > idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the > > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 < > https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > This one is tricky, and we wish Ted well on it. We *think* that all of the > references to the obsoleted RFCs are correct, but we're happy to talk after > his references review. > > See above for changes to the "Updates" list. > > > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For > example, are > > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > Er, the whole thing? Everything in Section 1.1 on gives exact changes from > RFC 9280 that should also be reflected in the text starting at Section 2. > People pored over this many times. We'd be happy to hear if there is a > mismatch. > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > > document? > > Given that this is in the Editorial stream, there is no clear guidance on > who should be considered the approver during AUTH48. We suggest Eliot Lear, > who is the document shepherd; he can ask other stream managers if that's OK. > > > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > > Yes! > > > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc > file. For more > > information about this experiment, see: > > hhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc > . > > See attached. And, if you want, we can also be part of the GitHub test as > well. > > --Paul Hoffman (also for Alexis, who has in fact not reviewed this message. > But she has now, and agrees. 😁 Alexis > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
