Hi Sarah, On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 at 19:08, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > -- > > 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 to both questions. > 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? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). The terminology is primarily based on EAT (RFC 9711). > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field > names > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > quotes; > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) We have used <tt/> (more or less consistently) when using syntactic elements that are taken from the CDDL-based grammar. This document does not use any special capitalisation. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. OK > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? ยง4.3.2. "Authority Identifier" was the result of multiple rounds of careful adjustments. > *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). Yes: Appendix B. "Open Issues". > *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? Abstract and Introduction have some repeated text. > 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. > Are these elements used consistently? > > * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) Yes, hopefully :-) > * italics (<em/> or *) > * bold (<strong/> or **) No > 6) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? Yes, the data format is specified using CDDL, and CBOR EDN-formatted examples are included. All of this is automatically checked by the associated GitHub CI [1] [1] https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component/tree/main/cddl > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? n.a. > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) We use "cddl" for the grammar and "cbor-edn" for the examples. > 7) 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. The document makes heavy use of the "include" feature in kramdown-rfc to source all the grammar fragments and examples [2]. So, unless it is possible to amalgamate everything into one kramdown file, I am not sure that we are suitable candidates for the experiment. [2] https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component/blob/main/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component.md > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 > in > GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this experiment, > see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. Yes > 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? No Thanks, cheers! -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
