Hi Martin, Thank you for your reply. The markdown looks great!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 4, 2026, at 3:58 AM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026, at 22:18, 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? > > Yes. > >> 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.) > > This should follow definitions and terminology from other HTTP documents, > starting from RFC 9110. > >> 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: > > Very narrow set of references here. All of them published and not being > revised. > >> 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? > > No special considerations. > >> >> 5) This document is part of Cluster 567: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C567 > > This document should probably precede the chunked OHTTP draft. The > dependency graph points FROM this TO that. > > But the dependencies are the only reason to have that ordering, the two > documents are largely standalone. > >> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? > > Ideally, yes. The kramdown-rfc source is here: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental.md > or > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/raw/refs/heads/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental.md > >> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 >> 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. > > Ideally yes. Authors are @martinthomson, @tfpauly, @kazuho on GitHub. AD is > @MikeBishop. Shepherd is likely @mnot. > >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > This one is straightforward. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
