Hi Tom, Thank you for your reply! Once I get AD approval for the version update, we will continue processing this document.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 21, 2026, at 5:19 PM, Tom Harrison <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your mail. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 04:04:18PM -0600, 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? > > We missed some acknowledgments, which have now been added (see > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-08&url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-09&difftype=--html). > >> 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.) > > Since this is an update to RFC 9286, the use of terminology and > similar in this document should be consistent with what's in RFC 9286. > >> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. > > This appears to be fine (checked with idnits). > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >> *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > The implementation status section needs to be removed. > >> 5) Because this document updates RFC 9286, please review >> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >> document or are not relevant: >> >> * RFC 9286 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9286) > > The existing errata are not relevant to this document. > >> 6) 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. >> >> 7) 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. > > We would prefer not to participate in these pilot tests. > >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > No, all good, thanks. > > Cheers > -Tom -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
