On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 6:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 2:14 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]. > org> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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? > Um, kinda. The Python was already tagged as such, but the JSON wasn't — I have just made this change in the Github repo ( https://github.com/wkumari/draft-murray-dispatch-mime-protobuf/commit/11bea8843bd0e043febbeafafb37b9019b1eb695 ) The "protobuf" code is not ( https://github.com/wkumari/draft-murray-dispatch-mime-protobuf/blob/11bea8843bd0e043febbeafafb37b9019b1eb695/draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf.md?plain=1#L148), as there is no defined tag for it. For Murray's future info, the info seems to be here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types Thanks, W > >> 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]
