Confirmed > On 4 Jun 2026, at 13:50, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Wim and Jeff, > > Could you please confirm your author information in the draft is correct and > current? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip/ > > If we do not hear back, we will move the document along and ask you again > during Final Review. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On May 29, 2026, at 3:26 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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]
