On 27/02/2026 21:50, 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?
No changes required.
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 author writes in British English.
Generally the terminology should be matching that of RFC 9499, and that
document is cited.
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* References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be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superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use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.
As far as I can see there are no out of date references.
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 "About this document" section describing the GitHub repo should be
removed.
5) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg?
The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that:
* the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as
possible, and
* the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output.
I use Martin Thomson's "aasvg" utility, which generates the SVGs
directly from the ASCII art.
I don't have PDF versions - please advise if I need to make any changes
to the source files when that time comes.
6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
document?
Not that I can think of!
thanks,
Ray
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
