Dear RFC Editor, On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 09:11:09PM -0000, [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? 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>."). There is no particular style guide I'm aware of. > * 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.)? <tt/> is used for the field names (e.g., 'notBefore'). > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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>. I think it is all in order. > 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))? Appendix A can be removed, this is also noted in the document itself. > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? Nothing comes to mind at this moment. It is just a short document. > 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 **) I believe so > 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Nothing comes to mind at this moment. It is just a short document. Kind regards, Job -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
