Hi,
Thanks for the email, I will be answering on behalf of the authors. Please see
responses in line:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2026, at 22:27, [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?
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>.").
>
> * 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.)?
To answer both of these, we have attempted to match the style and terminology
of RFC 9530, which itself attempts to channel the HTTP editorial style
guidelines in https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide. We expect readers
to use this doc in combination with RFC 9530 so consistency with it is
important. If there is a conflict, prefer RFC 9530.
HTTP Header field names, e.g. Repr-Digest or Unencoded-Digest, should be
capital cased in <tt>
>
>
> 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>.
There are a small number of references and they all look ok to me.
>
> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example:
>
> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted?
No
>
> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such
> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))?
Yes, the "About This Document" section
>
> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited
> the same way?
N/A
>
>
> 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 _tried_ to apply them consistently. I suspect we may have failed to hit 100%
success :-)
>
> 6) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code
> snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's
> XML file). See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages.
>
> * Does it validate?
Several instance are of type '<sourcecode type="http-message" ...', these are
automatically validated as part of the HTTP WG drafting process. There were
also semantically validated during last call and directorate reviews.
>
> * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries
> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link
> above for more information). Please confirm that this document matches
> the current guidance for the language type.
Confirmed
>
> * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document,
> please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element
> for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types
> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.)
Several instance are of type '<sourcecode type="http-message" ...'
>
>
> 7) Because this document updates RFC 9530, please review
> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this
> document or are not relevant:
>
> * RFC 9530 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9530)
All errata have been checked and are not relevant to be addressed in this
document.
>
>
> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
> document?
Our authoring process uses Markdown. If there's any way for us to be opted in
to the markdown RFC process we'd love to do that. If that's not possible, we'll
deal with it.
Kind regards
Lucas
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
