Hi Hannes, Just sending again in case you missed my further questions.
Thanks in advance, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Apr 2, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Hannes, > > So glad to get your reply! > > I have a couple followup questions: > > A) Regarding: >>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>> Are these elements used consistently? >>> >>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>> >> I thought we had consistently used those styles but when I just >> double-checked I noticed that we did not. :-( > > Could you let us know if there is a pattern you would like us to follow > and/or apply for the <tt> tagging? > > > B) Regarding: >>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>> >>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>> >>> >> The specification contains CDDL. The full CDDL description in Appendix C is >> described as >> <figure><sourcecode type="CDDL"> >> >> Snippets of this CDDL are also found in the body of the document but there >> they are marked as "cddl-xxx" whereby xxx indicates the type of message >> being shown. >> > While we understand the logic behind this "cddl-xxx" choice, this does not > follow current practice for sourcecode types, even with checking media types: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml. > > May we update to "cddl" to match past RFCs? > > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Apr 2, 2026, at 4:40 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>>>> >>>>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>>>>> >> I thought we had consistently used those styles but when I just >> double-checked I noticed that we did not. :-( >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
