Dear 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? > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes, the abstract and author addresses are accurate and the acknowledgement section is current.
> > 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>."). We use some terminology from RFC9473. We did not follow a specific style guide, but we tried to keep style consistent across the three documents in the cluster. > > * 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.)? We capitalized: - Field and headers names (e..g Hop Field). When inside headers, we use the same capitalization as in the Protobuf message format defined in draft-dekater-scion-controlplane (e.g., `HopField` ) - Some component names (e.g., Control Plane, Control Service, Data Plane, etc.) I noticed capitalization in this draft is less consistent than in others in the cluster. On scion-pki, we did a quick draftforge capitalization review ourselves, but back when we submitted the latest version of this draft we hadn’t found this great tool yet.. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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>. References are ok. > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? Not that I am aware of. > > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? - Change Log at the end. - I noticed that in this document we still have appendix "Deployment Testing: SCIONLab”, which we removed in the other documents in the cluster. Are we still in time to remove it (including the mentioned references [SCIONLAB], [SCIONLAB_WEBSITE]), looping in the ISE editor? If not, it is also ok to leave it there. I also noticed that we added the other appendix "Assigned SCION Protocol Numbers” as not numbered. I think this was an oversight on our side, could it be changed to numbered? > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? Part of the intro is repeated across drafts in the cluster 1. Introduction: it contains a general introduction. -controlplane contains an extended introduction, while -pki and -dataplane point to the extended intro in -controlplane 1.1. Terminology: terms that are relevant to the draft may be repeated across draftds. Each draft only contains terms that are relevant to it. Remaining paragraphs of the introduction are draft specific (from 1.2 on). > 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 **) - Bold is used consistently in the terminology section. - Bold s sometimes used in bullet lists. - ` is used for message fields as they appear in protobuf message definitions (e.g. `SrcISD`) > > > 6) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > > The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as > possible, and > > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. We used aasvg. All figures fit in a PDF page. > > 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Not really, feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Thank you, Best, Nicola -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
