Dear RFC Editor, On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 09:18:30PM -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>."). This document tries to align with the style used by the IDR working group. It might be good to CC the IDR chairs if there are questions about phrases or style. I know they've been working hard to harmonize the style across the BGP corpus. > * 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 tokens. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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 all good? > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? All good. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? N/A > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? I don't think so. > 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 **) We've used <tt/> to for the names of validation states. Hopefully consistently. > 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Nothing comes to mind at this moment. Thank you for your work and help in preparing this document! Kind regards, Job -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
