Hi Aaron, Exactly correct. Looks great! We'll continue processing this markdown as usual.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 4, 2025, at 12:24 PM, Aaron Parecki <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > No problem, I just pushed up a new version that embeds the artwork in the > file to GitHub. I assume no datatracker update is necessary since the > contents of the built output hasn't changed? > > https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-browser-based-apps/blob/main/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps.md > > Aaron > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:49 AM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > Thank you so much for updating the fixed-width and italics. > > Regarding the "self-contained" nature of the markdown file, the artwork does > need to be physically included in the file. We can't process the file with > the artwork being in an "{::include}" situation. > > Could you provide a markdown file with the artwork physically included? > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Dec 3, 2025, at 8:22 PM, Aaron Parecki > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thank you, responses inline. > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 7:35 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Author(s), > > > > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working > > with you > > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce > > processing time > > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please > > confer > > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a > > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline > > communication. > > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to > > this > > message. > > > > As you read through the rest of this email: > > > > * 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). > > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with > > any > > applicable rationale/comments. > > > > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear > > from you > > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a > > reply). Even > > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates > > to the > > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document > > will start > > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our > > updates > > during AUTH48. > > > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at > > [email protected]. > > > > Thank you! > > The RPC Team > > > > -- > > > > 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? > > * 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.) > > > > > > The terminology in this document should match RFC 6749, although some of > > the language in 6749 is somewhat outdated and being updated by OAuth 2.1: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1 > > > > 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. > > > > I've reviewed the references. The IETF references should already be up to > > date with the exception of RFC6265bis which we have been waiting for. > > > > This document references a lot of documents from other organizations, some > > of which are "living standards". Most if not all of these references are > > pointers to the document rather than prescribing specific protocol > > behavior, so an update to the latest version of these should not be a > > problem. > > > > > > 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? > > > > I don't believe anything in this document was particularly contentious. > > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > > this > > document? > > > > The normative language in this document is intended to be incorporated into > > OAuth 2.1 as one of the inputs to that. We don't plan on bringing in the > > full discussion of the architectural patterns into OAuth 2.1. > > > > 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 found some inconsistent uses of fixed-width vs italics in this section: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-25.html#section-6.1.3.2 > > These have been updated in draft -26 > > > > > > 7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > > > > The SVGs are created using aasvg as part of the GitHub build process: > > https://github.com/martinthomson/aasvg > > > > They are created by authoring an ASCII version, and the SVG version is > > derived from that. > > > > 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. > > > > Confirmed they all fit on the PDF output > > > > 8) This document is part of Cluster 548. > > > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a > > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please > > provide > > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. > > If order is not important, please let us know. > > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that > > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text > > or > > Security Considerations)? > > * For more information about clusters, see > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ > > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > > > The only other document in cluster 548 is RFC6265bis. We reference one > > element of RFC6265bis, the use of the __Host header here: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-25.html#section-6.1.3.2 > > > > 9) 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. > > > > > > Yes that would be great. You can find the kramdown-rfc version here: > > https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-browser-based-apps/blob/main/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps.md > > > > The artwork is included from the "art" folder with "{::include}" > > directives, I am not sure if that counts as "self-contained" for this > > purpose. > > > > 10) 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, thank you. > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
