Hi Nicola, Thank you for your reply! We'll get started with the SVGs as they are, and perhaps during Final Review we can revisit if the overflowing captions are distracting enough to require revision.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 23, 2026, at 5:31 PM, Nicola Rustignoli > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 is accurate and the acknowledgement section is current. > On authors: Corine De Kater should be marked as Independent > > > >> >> 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: > - component names (e.g., Control Plane, Control Service, Isolation Domain, > etc.) > - Packet fields (e.g., Info Field, Hop Field) > - Roles (e.g., Authoritative AS, Core AS) > - Protobuf fields are capitalized as the code blocks (e.g., ASEntrySignedBody) > >> >> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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>. > All references look good > > >> >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > I don’t think there are any. > >> >> * 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 > >> >> * 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. > - Italic is mostly used in bullet lists. > - ` is used for message fields as they appear in protobuf message definitions > (e.g. `associated_data_length`) > >> >> >> 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 SVGs fit in one page, however captions of figures 25 and > 26 in the appendix overflow to the next page. I’m not sure we can shrink > these, but if you feel strongly about it, we can try > > >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > Not that I can think of. Please reach out to us if you have any other > questions. > > Looking forward to working with you, > Best, > Nicola -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
