Hi Sean and Jon, Sean - Thank you for your reply! I have one question regarding: >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. For example: >> ... >> * 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.)? > > We do have ASN.1 and JSON in here so we’ll have to deal with that. I don’t > think we have added the <tt/> to those field names, but I’d like to suggest > that we start.
Just wanting to clarify. Are you thinking of posting a new version with these changes? Or is this wishful thinking for the future? Jon - Sean wants to know if you'd like this draft to participate in the two pilot programs. If we don't hear back within the week, we'll assume regular processing with XML and email for Final Review (formerly AUTH48). Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 18, 2026, at 9:04 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 17, 2026, at 15:54, [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? > > Yes/Yes > >> 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>."). > > 8225/8226 are the RFCs this one supports so if there’s a style I’d say follow > those two. > >> * 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.)? > > We do have ASN.1 and JSON in here so we’ll have to deal with that. I don’t > think we have added the <tt/> to those field names, but I’d like to suggest > that we start. > >> 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>. > > We have two informative references. One is in the RFC editor’s queue (AUTH48) > and another just about to enter IETF LC. > >> 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? > > I don’t think there’s any section that needs special handling. > >> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > I would, but I will defer to Jon on this one, i.e., if he says no I’m okay > with not. > >> 6) 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. > > I would, but I will defer to Jon on this one, i.e., if he says no I’m okay > with not. > >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Nope. > > Cheers, > spt -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
