Hi Dino, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 16, 2026, at 5:41 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to >> make those >> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation >> of diffs, >> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc >> shepherds). >> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with >> any >> applicable rationale/comments. > > No further updates are ncessary from my point of view. > >> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear >> from you >> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a reply). >> Even >> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates >> to the >> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document >> will start >> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates >> during AUTH48. > > Great, thanks. > >> 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, >> 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>."). >> * 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.)? > > Make the document consistent with the foundational LISP documents RFC9300 and > RFC9301. > >> 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). > > Okay. > >> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >> updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > Sure, thanks. > >> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > Okay. > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > Yes, but they have been removed. > >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > > I don't think so. > >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > No. > >> 5) Because this document updates RFC 8060, please review >> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >> document or are not relevant: >> >> * RFC 8060 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8060) > > Done. > >> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > I don't thinks so. > > Thanks, > Dino > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
