Hi Lucas, Thank you for your reply.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for markdown. Could you send me the self-contained markdown file that matches the approved version in datatracker? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 22, 2026, at 5:50 PM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
