Greetings Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await your review. Please review the questions below and let us know how to proceed.
Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Nov 17, 2025, at 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Abstract > > a) The Abstract does not explicitly mention that this document obsoletes RFC > 7996. See the checklist in the "Abstract" section of > https://authors.ietf.org/required-content. Please review and let us know how > you would like to update. > > > b) This sentence mentions the RPC being responsible for implementation > decisions. Other instances in the document mention the RPC being responsible > for decisions about both tooling and implementation. Are any updates needed, > or is the current okay? > > Original: > It also makes the RFC Publication Center (RPC) responsible for > implementation decisions regarding SVGs. > > Perhaps: > It also makes the RFC Publication Center (RPC) responsible for > decisions about SVG tooling and implementation. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Abstract/Introduction: Is "sets" the best word choice here? > Would > "defines" or something else be better? Also, will all readers know what the > "definitive versions of RFCs and relevant publication formats" are? Would > adding a citation or clarification in the Introduction be helpful? If so, > please provide the appropriate citation or text. > > Original: > This document sets policy for the inclusion of SVGs in the definitive > versions of RFCs and relevant publication formats. > ... > This document sets policy for the inclusion of SVGs (Scalable Vector > Graphics) in the definitive versions of RFCs and relevant publication > formats. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: In the text below, how may we update "This > includes"? > It is not clear what "This" refers to. > > Original: > * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > comprehensible for any significant readership. This includes: > > - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > > - SVGs must not contain executable script. > > - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > disabilities, ... > > Perhaps: > * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > comprehensible for any significant readership. In particular: > > - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > > - SVGs must not contain executable script. > > - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > disabilities, ... > > Or: > * Images and diagrams in RFCs should be successfully rendered and > understood by the widest audience possible. To that end, the RPC > may prohibit the use of SVG features that are known to lack > support on common devices, that do not render on small or low- > resolution screens, or that could make diagrams less > comprehensible for any significant readership. For instance: > > - SVGs must not contain pointers to external resources. > > - SVGs must not contain executable script. > > - SVGs should be as accessible as possible to people with visual > disabilities, ... > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have updated the sentence below to clarify > that > SVGs should be consistent with the content of the RFC (rather than the text > output file of the RFC). > > Original: > At minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the text. > > Current: > At minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the descriptions > in the text of the RFC. > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: This sentence mentions that decisions about SVG > tooling and implementation are "made or overseen" by the RPC. The document > mentions several times that the RPC is responsible for making decisions, but > this is the only mention of "overseen" in the document. Please review and let > us know if any updates are needed. > > Original: > SVG tooling and implementation decisions are made or overseen by the > RPC, and must adhere to the policy requirements in this document. > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: We updated "rfcxml" to "RFCXML" in the first > sentence > below per RFC 9720. Would it be helpful to also include a citation to RFC 9720 > or other applicable reference here? > > Original: > * Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > rfcxml. Publication formats should present the versions best > suited to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > > Perhaps: > * Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > RFCXML [RFC9720]. Publication formats should present the versions best > suited to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > --> > > > Thank you. > > Kaelin Foody and Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > > On Nov 17, 2025, at 10:45 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/11/17 > > RFC Author(s): > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. > > The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). > > Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown > > Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as > an RFC. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.md > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the kramdown: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-md-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896 > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
