Thank you, responses inline. On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 7:35 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author(s), > > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working > with you > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce > processing time > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. > Please confer > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in > a > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline > communication. > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to > this > message. > > As you read through the rest of this email: > > * 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). > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with > any > applicable rationale/comments. > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear > from you > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a > reply). Even > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates > to the > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document > will start > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our > updates > during AUTH48. > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at > [email protected]. > > Thank you! > The RPC Team > > -- > > 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? > * 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.) > > The terminology in this document should match RFC 6749, although some of the language in 6749 is somewhat outdated and being updated by OAuth 2.1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1 > > 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. > I've reviewed the references. The IETF references should already be up to date with the exception of RFC6265bis which we have been waiting for. This document references a lot of documents from other organizations, some of which are "living standards". Most if not all of these references are pointers to the document rather than prescribing specific protocol behavior, so an update to the latest version of these should not be a problem. > > > 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? I don't believe anything in this document was particularly contentious. > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > > The normative language in this document is intended to be incorporated into OAuth 2.1 as one of the inputs to that. We don't plan on bringing in the full discussion of the architectural patterns into OAuth 2.1. > > 6) 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 found some inconsistent uses of fixed-width vs italics in this section: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-25.html#section-6.1.3.2 These have been updated in draft -26 > 7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > The SVGs are created using aasvg as part of the GitHub build process: https://github.com/martinthomson/aasvg They are created by authoring an ASCII version, and the SVG version is derived from that. > > The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely > as > possible, and > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > > Confirmed they all fit on the PDF output > > 8) This document is part of Cluster 548. > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please > provide > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. > If order is not important, please let us know. > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document > that > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text > or > Security Considerations)? > * For more information about clusters, see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > The only other document in cluster 548 is RFC6265bis. We reference one element of RFC6265bis, the use of the __Host header here: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-25.html#section-6.1.3.2 9) 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. > > Yes that would be great. You can find the kramdown-rfc version here: https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-browser-based-apps/blob/main/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps.md The artwork is included from the "art" folder with "{::include}" directives, I am not sure if that counts as "self-contained" for this purpose. > > 10) 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, thank you.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
