Hello, > 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?
All good > 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>."). > * 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.)? All good. This document makes quotes from an RFC and so (obviously) those quotes cannot be changed. Note the way we have marked quoted and revised 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 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. All good > 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? Nothing special, but see 2) > 5) Because this document updates RFC 8754, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 8754 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8754) Relevant and addressed with specific text and reference. > 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. Not really :-) If you want to use the kd-rfc tooling, then knock yourselves out. > 7) 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. Really, not a lot at all, thanks. I very much like the diff approach, and I like talking with you about the changes. If you use github to do the editing work, that is fine by me. I'm not sure that requiring all authors to have github usernames is quite the open approach we strive for. > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Don't think so. Cheers, Adrian -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
