RFC-editor, thank you for the intake questions. We have a few obvious editorial changes prompted by your questions that we would submit as a -11, but of course we can’t do this right now. So both the markdown (as suggested) and the RFCXML for this minor update are attached; we plan to submit -11 on July 19th.
> 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? The Acknowledgements were indeed intended to receive an update after the review process. An update is in the markdown (and in the -11 intake update we plan to submit for documentation) below, see also [1] for a quick overview. [1]: https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/pull/29 > 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 is a follow-on to RFC 7228, so we would like to stay close stylistically to that. > * 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 do not use <tt, but a lot of double quotes (no single quotes, except accidentally in the lead-up to Table 12, which we have fixed in the -11). It seems we do not use capitalization. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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>. Noted. (Obviously, updates to I-D references will continue to be necessary, as already indicated by idnits.) > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? During IESG review, we had a lively discussion about 3.3 (and, to a smaller extent, 5.3), but not really in a way that would be considered contentious. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? About This Document (marked as cref already) > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? Some of the tables have some regularity, but that should be obvious. Vertically repeated cells in tables such as Table 10 (“yes", "no fragmentation needed") could probably be improved by replacing the repetition by a rowspan, which kramdown-rfc makes a bit harder to do than necessary now. > 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 *) There is a single instance of *scaling*. Even though this is a really important word, this doesn’t need to stay emphasized, if that is not wanted. > * bold (<strong/> or **) — > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For > more > information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. Yes, please. Kramdown-rfc input file attached (as produced by kramdown-rfc-extract-markdown from the input to -11). > 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing Final > Review > in GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or > document > shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. We recently did, and had a bit of trouble adapting our working style to that. So right now, we would like to pass on this opportunity. The kramdown-rfc experiment already provides a good level of git experience. > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? There were some XML (author) comments still in the text for -10. One of them was a link we didn’t decide to include in the bibliography. One was an idea to further expand the document, but we were happy with its current level of detail and size. The other two were overtaken by events. So all four of them were removed in the -11 intake update below. Hope to see you in Vienna soon! Grüße, Carsten
7228bis-intake.md
Description: Binary data
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
