Hi Sarah, Let me try to answer it on behalf of the Hannes / authors. Please see inline below.
Thanks, Ming On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 1:21 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > Please use the markdown style respectively as listed above: >> * fixed width font (`) >> * italics (*) >> * bold (**) > > 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? > > I am not very sure on this. The markdown file has lines that include "~~~~ cddl-teep-message". Do you mean to change them all to "~~~~ cddl"? Most likely, I still need Hannes to confirm. Thanks. > 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. :-( > >>> > >> > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
