Hi Ray, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 2, 2026, at 9:19 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27/02/2026 21:50, Sarah Tarrant 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? > > No changes required. > >> 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). >> * 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.) > > The document author writes in British English. > > Generally the terminology should be matching that of RFC 9499, and that > document is cited. > >> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. > > As far as I can see there are no out of date references. > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > The "About this document" section describing the GitHub repo should be > removed. > >> 5) 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. > > I use Martin Thomson's "aasvg" utility, which generates the SVGs directly > from the ASCII art. > > I don't have PDF versions - please advise if I need to make any changes to > the source files when that time comes. > >> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Not that I can think of! > > thanks, > > Ray > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
