I would add to this that we have attempted to follow the HTTP Editorial Style Guide, https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide.
________________________________ From: Julian Reschke <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:43:21 AM To: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mike Bishop <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-14> Sarah, Am 20.11.2025 um 23:02 schrieb Sarah Tarrant: > ... > 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). Yes, RFC 9110. > * 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.) No. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. Ok. > 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? Not contentious, but late addition: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-14.html#name-selection-of-the-method-nam > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? No. > 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 **) Yes. > 7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? aasvg. > The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as > possible, and > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > > > 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, it's XML. > 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. Yes. > ... Best regards, Julian
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
