Hi Job, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 22, 2026, at 4:23 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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]
