Hi Jeff, Wim, and Adam, Jeff - Thank you for your reply! Based on your response to the markdown/GH questions, let's just stick with XML and the regular email process for this document.
Wim and Adam - Please confirm your author information that appears on the document. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On May 29, 2026, at 2:07 PM, Haas, Jeff > <[email protected]> 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? > > Yes. > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > My address block is correct. Wim and Adam should confirm that their address > blocks reflect what they wish to show up in the RFC. > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$> >> >."). >> * 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.)? > > For both of these, the primary resources for style are RFCs 8955, 8956, 9117. > > The primary terms that require audit and editorial advice for consistency are: > > "redirect-to-IP", which should have some consistencies to the existing > redirection methods in RFC 8955. > > "flow-spec". Unfortunately there is a wild degree of inconsistency in this > document and to some extent in the other RFCs. The full term is "flow > specification" and the short term is "flow spec". We would welcome editorial > advice for making the uses of the full and short forms consistent within this > document. The result of this will be propagated to other new work in IDR for > flowspec version 2. > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$> >> >. You can also help the >> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$> >> > >> with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > I believe all references are current. The reference for RFC 7942 may be > pruned > along with appendix A per the instructions to remove the implementation status > as part of publication. > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > Not particularly. > >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > > See instructions in Appendix A. > >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > Not particularly. > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$> >> . > > Given author availability, I would suggest we stick with xml format for this > process. However, if there's a desire to convert the document to kdrfc on our > behalf, we wouldn't object. > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$> >> . > > While I am willing (jhaas-pfrc is my ID), Wim and Adam have not been > participating on github for the repository hosting this document. They may > answer otherwise. > > -- Jeff -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
