Hi Adrian, Thank you for your reply! Based on your answers, let's forgo markdown/GitHub for this one.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On May 27, 2026, at 5:00 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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]
