On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:47:44PM -0600, Sarah Tarrant wrote: > 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: The terminology used in the document is based on the PTP (IEEE 1588-2019) standard and NTP (RFC 5905, RFC 7822). TLV is a PTP term. Extension field is an NTP term. The names of extension fields should have initial capitalization. > 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: I think that should be ok. > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. There are two versions of the PTP (IEEE 1588) specification in references, one normative, one informative. The NTP TLV should be usable in both versions. They have different organization-specific TLV types (0x0003 vs 0x8000). > 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? In the "PTP transport for NTP" section there are two paragraphs that were a bit contentious: The one starting with The NTP TLV MUST be included in a unicast PTP event message. An event message is required to enable the PTP-specific hardware and the one starting with The PTP version 2.1 [IEEE1588-2019] specification states that "A domain shall define the scope of PTP message communication, state, operations, data sets, > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Nothing comes to my mind. > 6) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? There is no SVG in the document. The ASCII art was hand drawn. > 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For > more > information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. I'm not interested in trying kramdown. > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 > in > GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this > experiment, > see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. Yes, I'd like to try a github-based workflow. Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
