Hi Robert, Thank you for your reply!
Regarding: >> 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. Just for my own sanity, which format of line breaking (or not) are you preferring? We can do either! a) https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-uid-07.html b) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-uid-07#section-4 Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 14, 2026, at 1:56 AM, Robert Stepanek <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
