Greetings! Answers (and a question) below.
On Thu, 21 May 2026, at 22:41, [email protected] wrote: > Author(s), > > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC > Editor queue! > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to > working with you > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce > processing time > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. > Please confer > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is > in a > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline > communication. > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply > to this > message. > > 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. One nit raised during IESG was about referencing RFCs that are part of a BCP. I am unclear on how to do it in the xml2rfc syntax, and would appreciate your advice, especially where I use the "section" and "sectionFormat" attributes of <xref> elements. The feedback can be seen here (point 2 in Med’s email): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/gAYbNWWFhnusWi1yTF67Xhx51gw/ Once I know how to mark this up I will submit a new version which addresses both of Med’s nits. > [snip] > > 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? Yes. > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes. > 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>."). This document uses terminology from RFC 9803. > * 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.)? I have used <tt> tags around tokens, property names etc inline in paragraph text. > 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 all checked and LGTM. > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? None. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such Yes, there are a couple and these are marked. > (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) 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 **) Yes, they should be. > 6) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? I noticed a minor issue which I will fix in the next version. The corrected versions validate using the two publicly available RDAP validation tools. > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? Not applicable. > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) The two <sourcecode> elements both contain JSON, but they don’t currently have the “type” attribute. I will add them in the next version. > 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Nothing comes to mind. Thanks! G. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
