Hi Thomas, Thank you for your reply!
Based on the state of the files, let's just go with GitHub/XML and not Markdown. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 23, 2026, at 11:21 AM, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 at 19:08, Sarah Tarrant > <[email protected]> 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? > > Yes to both questions. > >> 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). > > The terminology is primarily based on EAT (RFC 9711). > >> * 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.) > > We have used <tt/> (more or less consistently) when using syntactic > elements that are taken from the CDDL-based grammar. > > This document does not use any special capitalisation. > >> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >> References section 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. > > OK > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > §4.3.2. "Authority Identifier" was the result of multiple rounds of > careful adjustments. > >> *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > > Yes: Appendix B. "Open Issues". > >> *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > Abstract and Introduction have some repeated text. > >> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >> Are these elements used consistently? >> >> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) > > Yes, hopefully :-) > >> * italics (<em/> or *) >> * bold (<strong/> or **) > > No > >> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >> >> * Does the sourcecode validate? > > Yes, the data format is specified using CDDL, and CBOR EDN-formatted > examples are included. > All of this is automatically checked by the associated GitHub CI [1] > > [1] > https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component/tree/main/cddl > >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > > n.a. > >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > > We use "cddl" for the grammar and "cbor-edn" for the examples. > >> 7) 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. > > The document makes heavy use of the "include" feature in kramdown-rfc > to source all the grammar fragments and examples [2]. > So, unless it is possible to amalgamate everything into one kramdown > file, I am not sure that we are suitable candidates for the > experiment. > > [2] > https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component/blob/main/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component.md > >> 8) 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. > > Yes > >> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > No > > Thanks, cheers! -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
