Hi Christian, Very good!
For the code blocks, if you need a type, check out our list here: https://rpc-wiki.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types. Also, anything on IANA's media types list is also acceptable: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml. As for the TBDs, please hold off on adding those. We can add those later. I'll be on the lookout for a new version and a new markdown file! Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 15, 2026, at 7:08 AM, Christian Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I am working on a PR that addresses these points - here are a few comments: > > B) I believe those are the inline code blocks - I didn’t associate those with > your question, sorry! Those are intentional to signal parameters/claims in > the text - basically every time a concrete parameter etc. is referenced. > > C) Sorry, I only thought about source code, not code blocks with JSON/CBOR > etc. We have quite a few code blocks that aren’t any of the “normal" formal > types - for example annotated cbor or JWT in <header>.<payload> annotation. > We weren’t really sure what code-block type to use for those, so we left it > empty, but I found custom types in other RFCs that I will re-use. > > D) I’ll move all examples into the core markdown file and remove the includes. > > We should be able to publish a new version with those changes this week. > Since we also got a mail regarding the pending IANA registrations (that we > will answer in a few days) and had a few “TBD”s in the text, should I also > update these TBDs to the numbers that were created by IANA now? > > Best regards, > Christian > >> On 11. Jun 2026, at 16:25, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Christian, Paul, and Tobias, >> >> Thank you for your reply! I do have some followup questions/comments: >> >> A) Regarding 3), yes, please! If you want to fix up those lists, please >> submit a new version to the datatracker. Once you do that, be sure to send >> me the updated self-contained markdown file as well. >> >> B) Regarding 5), please take another look at the submitted XML file as I >> found <tt> throughout (e.g., bits, StatusList, lst, aggregation_ur, typ, >> etc.). If this was done unintentionally, please submit a corrected version >> that aligns with your intentions. However, if this was intentional, please >> let us know what patten you followed so that we can help keep the usage >> consistent in the document. >> >> C) Regarding 6), I'm seeing sourcecode elements in the XML, particularly >> json, cddl, and (possibly) asn.1. This can get blurred between the markdown >> and the xml files, as markdown doesn't always have a "type" selected. If it >> is helpful to think of these elements as "formal language", see: >> https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. We just want to verify that what >> is in the submitted XML is correct and intentional, so please let us know >> that. >> >> D) Regarding 7), I'm not able to parse the markdown file at: >> https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/blob/main/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.md?plain=1. >> It looks like a couple {::include elements were used; so, if you would like >> to proceed with markdown, we would need a self-contained file. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:07 AM, Christian Bormann >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear RPC team, >>> >>> Thanks, below are the answers to the questions: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Abstract is still accurate and Author’s names & email addresses are current. >>> Acknowledgements should be current as well. >>> >>>> 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.)? >>> >>> Everything introduced in terminology is capitalised. >>> In terms of terminology, RFC9901 (SD-JWT) is an important reference for the >>> issuer-holder-verifier model that we’ve been following for this draft. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> We found a few smaller issues like sd-jwt vc having published a new version >>> (and I’d assume they will publish another version before IETF Vienna). >>> There also seem to be some minor problems with the txt rendering of lists >>> in the IANA section that I will try to resolve. >>> Should we release a new version with those fixes? >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Document history is present that is marked as “to be removed from the final >>> specification” >>> There are some TBD placeholders for IANA registration which need to be >>> adjusted once identifiers are assigned >>> >>>> >>>> 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 **) >>> >>> No >>> >>>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or >>>> text >>>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>> >>> No >>> >>>> 7) 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. >>> >>> If it doesn’t delay publication, sure! Our repository containing the >>> markdown is at https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list It >>> is not a fully self-contained file right now though with the examples in >>> separate files. >>> >>>> >>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>>> Final Review >>>> 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. >>> >>> Same as 7) >>> >>> https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list >>> Author’s GitHub handles: c2bo, paulbastian, tplooker >>> AD: debcooley >>> Document Shepherd: rifaat-ietf >>> >>> (Deb, Rifaat please check, but these seem to be correct?) >>> >>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> >>> Nothing we are aware of >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Paul, Tobias, Christian >>> >>> >>>> On 4. Jun 2026, at 23:30, [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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we >>>> receive a >>>> reply. We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel >>>> that you >>>> need to make any updates to the document. After we hear from you, your >>>> document >>>> will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and >>>> approve our >>>> updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48). >>>> >>>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >>>> [email protected]. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> The RPC Team >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.)? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 **) >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or >>>> text >>>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 7) 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>>> Final Review >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
