HI all, (top posting)
I agree with Job, except for one small detail. Please update my address: Ties de Kock RIPE NCC Amsterdam < Netherlands > *The *Netherlands Email: [email protected] Kind regards, Ties On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 23:18, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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]
