Dear RFC Editor team,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026, at 11:17 PM, Sarah Tarrant 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?
> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
> sections current?
I confirm both.
> 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 document format is based on RFC 9553 and RFC 9555. Similar to these
documents, the current document also describes contacts data both in context of
the JSContact data model and the vCard model. Both formats use the term of
"properties" to describe specific elements of a contact. To disambiguate
between JSContact properties and vCard properties, the format uses
camelCase/lowercase for JSContact property names and uppercase for vCard
properties.
> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use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 reviewed the references and they all are current.
> 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 just noticed a nit in formatting section 4: the HTML version on
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-uid-07.html inserts
a line break after the type signature, that is, the sentence "The remaining
property definition..." starts on a new paragraph. This is as intended.
Instead, the HTML version at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-uid-07#section-4
displays the type signature and following sentences without line break. This
looks confusing, because the latter format is typically used in RFC 9553 to
define a property.
> 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 **)
I tried to do so!
> 7) Because this document updates RFC 9555, please review
> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this
> document or are not relevant:
>
> * RFC 9555 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9555)
All current errata is not relevant.
> 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, I prefer using XML for now.
> 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.
No, I'll wait for the Github process to become standard.
Thanks,
Robert
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
