> On Jun 18, 2026, at 10:41, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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?
This kind of depends on Jon too ;) > 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]
