Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > As you read through the rest of this email:
> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to
make those
> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy
creation of diffs,
> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc
> shepherds).
> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with
any
> applicable rationale/comments.
We made one update to react to the IANA review/confusion, and that's now -18.
I expect that requires AD approval; if not now, then certainly at AUTH48.
> 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, I think so.
> 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,
> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information
> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in
> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at
> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").
No.
> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that
> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial
capitalization."
> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used
> for token names." etc.)?
No.
> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be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.
okay.
> * References to documents from other organizations that have been
> superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
okay.
> 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?
No.
> 5) 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.
Our kramdown-rfc file is not self-contained as it includes multiple :include
directives, but I can rework it to be.
> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing
AUTH48 in
> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or
document
> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment,
see:
>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test.
Yes.
> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing
this
> document?
It's purpose is to just to create an IANA registry.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
