Kaelin I couldn’t quite parse your message. Don’t require additional approvals or not?
Eliot > On 12 Dec 2025, at 23:11, Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Nevil: Thank you for your approval of this document’s content. We have marked > it on the AUTH48 status page for this document. > > Alexis, all: Thanks for your reply. As part of the RPC’s kramdown-rfc pilot, > there is a two-part AUTH48 approval process (one round of approvals for > content and a final round of approvals for formatting). > > We have received all necessary content approvals and have converted the > document to RFCXML, with no major formatting changes to note. > > Please review the XML file/diff and the output files, and let us know if any > additional formatting changes are required or if you approve the RFC for > publication. We consider this your final assent that the document is ready > for publication. To request changes or approve this RFC for publication, > please reply all to this email. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896 > > For more information about the RPC’s kramdown-rfc pilot, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown. > > — FILES: — > > XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.xml > > XML diff: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-xmldiff1.html > > Output files: > 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 of changes made in AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Thank you all for your time. > > All best, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 12, 2025, at 4:21 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Kaelin, >> >> I think we have all of the approvals now, is that correct? >> >> Thanks, >> Alexis >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM Nevil Brownlee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi RFC Editor(s): >> I approve the changes made, as reflected in this AUTH48 email. >> >> Cheers, Nevil Brownlee >> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:50 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------- >> Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ >> >> -- >> RSAB mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > RSAB mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
