On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 2:14 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 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). > N/A > * 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.) > Nothing beyond what's already there. > 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). > OK. > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > OK. > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > OK. I believe all references are current, however. 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? No. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? Nope. > 6) 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 **) > I believe all uses are consistent. > 7) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > Yes. (It's example code.) > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or > text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > I don't think there's any special requirement for the included examples. > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > sourcecode types.) > No; where is this information? > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. > For more > information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > No. > 9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing > AUTH48 in > GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this > experiment, > see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test > . > Sure. -MSK
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
