On Oct 21, 2025, at 06:41, Sarah Tarrant <[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).
This was discussed on the RPC call today. These changes would cause a large amount of hassle because this is not an IETF stream document. Here is the set of changes we request to be made before AUTH84; please let us know if you have any questions. Section 1.3.1 and Section 7.6 say "...to the greatest extent possible." This should be clarified as "...to the greatest extent possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720]." The draft ignores the fact that RFC 7990 was obsoleted by RFC 9720. This changes the following: - The "updates" list is currently "7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729", but should instead be "7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 9720". This appears in the document header and in the abstract. - Section 1.5 should read: All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [RFC7991], [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996], and [RFC7997] are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)". > 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? Yes > * 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? > 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 make very precise updates to RFC 9280. As such, there should be no changes in the terminology or capitalization or formatting beyond what is in the draft. > 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully 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). > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. This one is tricky, and we wish Ted well on it. We *think* that all of the references to the obsoleted RFCs are correct, but we're happy to talk after his references review. See above for changes to the "Updates" list. > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? Er, the whole thing? Everything in Section 1.1 on gives exact changes from RFC 9280 that should also be reflected in the text starting at Section 2. People pored over this many times. We'd be happy to hear if there is a mismatch. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Given that this is in the Editorial stream, there is no clear guidance on who should be considered the approver during AUTH48. We suggest Eliot Lear, who is the document shepherd; he can ask other stream managers if that's OK. > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? Yes! > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For > more > information about this experiment, see: > hhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. See attached. And, if you want, we can also be part of the GitHub test as well. --Paul Hoffman (also for Alexis, who has in fact not reviewed this message)
draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates.mkd
Description: draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates.mkd
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
