Authors, While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in GitHub issues (see https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10036 /issues).
1) Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 2) For ease of the reader, please consider the following update. Original (The sentence prior is included for context): A false value ("?0") indicates the default behavior defined in [HTTP], where intermediaries might buffer the entire message before forwarding it. However, this explicit signal might increase intermediaries' confidence in doing so. Perhaps: A false value ("?0") indicates the default behavior defined in [HTTP], where intermediaries might buffer the entire message before forwarding it. However, this explicit signal might increase intermediaries' confidence in buffering the entire message before forwarding. 3) We do not see "Item" listed in the Strucutured Type column in the IANA registry. Please confirm that this should appear, and we will ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. Original (document): Field Name: Incremental Status: permanent Structured Type: Item Current (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields): Incremental permanent [RFC-ietf-httpbis-incremental-04: Incremental Forwarding of HTTP Messages] 4) Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc-style-guide/#inclusive-language and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. 5) Please comment in issue #2 when all changes shown in the RPC-edits PR are okay. We only need one author to comment. At that point, we will merge it into the Approved branch, convert the kramdown file to RFCXML, and share files for you to approve for publication. Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Aug 6, 2026, at 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** RFC Author(s): -------------- Your document has now entered Final Review (previously AUTH48). The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). Final Review is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot test (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test). Your document is available for review at: https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10036 Please do the following: a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators. b) see the README for details on the Final Review process: https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10036/blob/Approved/README.md c) review the edits in the RPC-edits pull request: https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10036/pulls d) address the issues: https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10036/issues Once the content of the .md file is stable, we will convert it to .xml and provide the .html, .pdf, .txt, and .xml files for review. You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies; see the Unavailable Authors section (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). Details on the status of your Final Review are here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10036/ Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Production Center -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
