Hi Hannes, This is just a reminder that I have some followup questions before moving this draft to EDIT state:
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 7, 2026, at 1:22 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
