Hi Kaelin, I approve the formatting, looks great!
Alexis On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 8:02 AM Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, Eliot, all, > > Martin: Thanks for your formatting approval -- we have marked it on the > AUTH48 status page. We have also updated the SVG reference as requested. > > Eliot: Thanks for your message. Two rounds of approvals are needed for > documents that have been edited in kramdown-rfc (one round to approve the > document’s content and a second round to approve the document’s output > files/formatting). We have received all content approvals but await a > second (and final) round of formatting approvals from Alexis, Jean, and > Nevil. > > For more information, please see < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown > >. > > Outstanding approvals can be tracked on the AUTH48 status page: < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896>. > > — FILES: — > > XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.xml > > XML diff: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-xmldiff1.html > > Output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.txt > > Diff of changes made in AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Diff of all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Thanks, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > > > On Dec 14, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > LGTM. > > > > You could probably set a date for the SVG reference. The spec is dated > and 04 October 2018 works. > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2025, at 09:10, Kaelin Foody wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Nevil: Thank you for your approval of this document’s content. We have > >> marked it on the AUTH48 status page for this document. > >> > >> Alexis, all: Thanks for your reply. As part of the RPC’s kramdown-rfc > >> pilot, there is a two-part AUTH48 approval process (one round of > >> approvals for content and a final round of approvals for formatting). > >> > >> We have received all necessary content approvals and have converted the > >> document to RFCXML, with no major formatting changes to note. > >> > >> Please review the XML file/diff and the output files, and let us know > >> if any additional formatting changes are required or if you approve the > >> RFC for publication. We consider this your final assent that the > >> document is ready for publication. To request changes or approve this > >> RFC for publication, please reply all to this email. > >> > >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896 > >> > >> For more information about the RPC’s kramdown-rfc pilot, please see: > >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown > . > >> > >> — FILES: — > >> > >> XML file: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.xml > >> > >> XML diff: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-xmldiff1.html > >> > >> Output files: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.txt > >> > >> Diff of changes made in AUTH48: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >> > >> Diff of all changes: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> > >> > >> Thank you all for your time. > >> > >> All best, > >> > >> Kaelin Foody > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> On Dec 12, 2025, at 4:21 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Kaelin, > >>> > >>> I think we have all of the approvals now, is that correct? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alexis > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM Nevil Brownlee < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi RFC Editor(s): > >>> I approve the changes made, as reflected in this AUTH48 email. > >>> > >>> Cheers, Nevil Brownlee > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Authors, > >>>> > >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Abstract > >>>> > >>>> a) The Abstract does not explicitly mention that this document > obsoletes RFC > >>>> 7996. See the checklist in the "Abstract" section of > >>>> https://authors.ietf.org/required-content. Please review and let us > know how > >>>> you would like to update. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> b) This sentence mentions the RPC being responsible for implementation > >>>> decisions. Other instances in the document mention the RPC being > responsible > >>>> for decisions about both tooling and implementation. Are any updates > needed, > >>>> or is the current okay? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> It also makes the RFC Publication Center (RPC) responsible for > >>>> implementation decisions regarding SVGs. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> It also makes the RFC Publication Center (RPC) responsible for > >>>> decisions about SVG tooling and implementation. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abstract/Introduction: Is "sets" the best word choice > here? Would > >>>> "defines" or something else be better? Also, will all readers know > what the > >>>> "definitive versions of RFCs and relevant publication formats" are? > Would > >>>> adding a citation or clarification in the Introduction be helpful? If > so, > >>>> please provide the appropriate citation or text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> This document sets policy for the inclusion of SVGs in the > definitive > >>>> versions of RFCs and relevant publication formats. > >>>> ... > >>>> This document sets policy for the inclusion of SVGs (Scalable Vector > >>>> Graphics) in the definitive versions of RFCs and relevant > publication > >>>> formats. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: In the text below, how may we update "This > includes"? > >>>> It is not clear what "This" refers to. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > >>>> understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > >>>> may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > >>>> support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > >>>> resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > >>>> comprehensible for any significant readership. This includes: > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain executable script. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > >>>> disabilities, ... > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > >>>> understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > >>>> may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > >>>> support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > >>>> resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > >>>> comprehensible for any significant readership. In particular: > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain executable script. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > >>>> disabilities, ... > >>>> > >>>> Or: > >>>> * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > >>>> understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > >>>> may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > >>>> support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > >>>> resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > >>>> comprehensible for any significant readership. For instance: > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs must not contain executable script. > >>>> > >>>> - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > >>>> disabilities, ... > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have updated the sentence below to > clarify that > >>>> SVGs should be consistent with the content of the RFC (rather than > the text > >>>> output file of the RFC). > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> At minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the text. > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> At minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the descriptions > >>>> in the text of the RFC. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: This sentence mentions that decisions > about SVG > >>>> tooling and implementation are "made or overseen" by the RPC. The > document > >>>> mentions several times that the RPC is responsible for making > decisions, but > >>>> this is the only mention of "overseen" in the document. Please review > and let > >>>> us know if any updates are needed. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> SVG tooling and implementation decisions are made or overseen by the > >>>> RPC, and must adhere to the policy requirements in this document. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: We updated "rfcxml" to "RFCXML" in the > first sentence > >>>> below per RFC 9720. Would it be helpful to also include a citation to > RFC 9720 > >>>> or other applicable reference here? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > >>>> rfcxml. Publication formats should present the versions best > >>>> suited to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> * Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > >>>> RFCXML [RFC9720]. Publication formats should present the > versions best > >>>> suited to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online > >>>> Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > >>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically > >>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > >>>> > >>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > should > >>>> still be reviewed as a best practice. > >>>> > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> > >>>> Kaelin Foody and Rebecca VanRheenen > >>>> RFC Production Center > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 17, 2025, at 10:45 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>> > >>>> Updated 2025/11/17 > >>>> > >>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>> > >>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. > >>>> > >>>> The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test > (see > >>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). > >>>> > >>>> Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc: > >>>> > >>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown > >>>> > >>>> Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as > >>>> an RFC. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Files > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> The files are available here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.md > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.pdf > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.txt > >>>> > >>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >>>> > >>>> Diff of the kramdown: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-md-diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-md-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tracking progress > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> > >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>> > >>>> RFC Editor > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ----------------------------------- > >>> Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ > >>> > >>> -- > >>> RSAB mailing list -- [email protected] > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
