Hi Sarah, Thanks for your mail.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 04:04:18PM -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? > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? We missed some acknowledgments, which have now been added (see https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-08&url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-09&difftype=--html). > 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.) Since this is an update to RFC 9286, the use of terminology and similar in this document should be consistent with what's in RFC 9286. > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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 appears to be fine (checked with idnits). > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? The implementation status section needs to be removed. > 5) Because this document updates RFC 9286, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 9286 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9286) The existing errata are not relevant to this document. > 6) 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. > > 7) 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. We would prefer not to participate in these pilot tests. > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? No, all good, thanks. Cheers -Tom -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
