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]
