Hi Carsten, The markdown looks great! Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 23, 2026, at 3:25 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > On 2026-01-22, at 22:46, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> 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. > (Assuming you will delete the editors’ note.) > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > Yes. > > (I notice that I’m extremely inconsistent in choosing Acknowledgments over > Acknowledgements, which I normally don’t do, except occasionally…) > >> 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). > > This is a very simple document that applies the terminology of RFC 9254 and > RFC 9595, the two normatively referenced RFCs. > >> * 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.) > > Again, nothing special. > >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows […] > > All seems to be up to date (and no changes are expected in the next 3 months > or so). > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > No. > >> *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > > No. > (There are some editor’s notes that will be removed once they have been > carried out.) > >> *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > > The same numbers do occur repeatedly (and therefore should be shown in a > consistent style), but that should be all. > >> 5) 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 **) > > <strong... is used to make certain digits (32473 or 032473) stand out as part > of a decimal (base 10) number. > >> 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. […] > > Yes, please! > Extracted markdown from -06.xml is attached. > > (I took the liberty to fix one space character, which should have been a > NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE U+202F like the other ones inside numbers, into that. > Since I’m not even sure those space characters will survive the RFC editor, I > don’t really want to submit a -07 for such a detail…) > >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Not really — a very simple document indeed. > I hope you enjoy working on it as much as I did... > > Grüße, Carsten > <rpc.md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
