Hi Carsten, Thank you for your reply! The markdown looks great.
Seen you in Vienna! Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 11, 2026, at 7:55 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
