Hi Ben, Thank you for your reply. We will take a closer look at those references will editing, and you'll be able to see and approve those updates during AUTH48.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 19, 2025, at 9:18 AM, Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 9:43 AM > > > > 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 is still accurate? > > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > sections current? > > Yes, these are still accurate and current. > > > 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 document attempts to comply with the HTTP Editorial Style Guide > (https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide) and to match the formatting of > the RFC 9110-9112. > > > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > > are > > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > The guidance in Section 7.1 and Section 8 has been the focus of substantive > discussion, and represents the result of several iterations within the > working group. > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > > document? > > This document was prepared using kramdown-rfc. I wasn't able to figure out > how to produce good hyperlinked references in that format. If some > references would be better styled as hyperlinks, I am happy to accept that > change. > > In the quoted sections of HTTP, I used direct (paragraph-targeted) URL > hyperlinks to indicate the source of some block-quotes. If these can be > converted to <relref> references, that might be preferable, but I am not > aware of support for that capability in <relref> or <blockquote>. > > > 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 **) > > The words "necessary" and "sufficient" in Section 3 are emphasized (as > intended) in the TXT output, but curiously are not emphasized in the HTML > output. Perhaps this can be corrected. > > > 6) Because this document updates RFCs 9112 and 9298, please review > > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in this > > document or are not relevant: > > I do not believe the errata are relevant. > > --Ben Schwartz -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
