Hi Julian, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Nov 21, 2025, at 12:43 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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]
