Hi Sarah, Thank you for this. Here is my response:
-------- Original Message -------- *Subject: *Document intake questions about Document intake questions about *From: *Sarah Tarrant *To: *[email protected]*Cc: *[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
*Date: *Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:12:08 -0600
* 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.
No changes required. But please note the RFC Editor note from the IESG in the approval message: RFC Editor Note Please make this change: OLD: Some URI schemes RECOMMENDED in Section 2.2.3 do not mandate NEW: Some URI schemes recommended in Section 2.2.3 do not mandateAlso, I just noticed there appears to be a redundant 'newline' above the sentence:
"DNS terminology in this document follows [RFC9499]." in Section 1.1 of the 'htmlized' format:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-davids-forsalereg#name-terminologyBut it is not in my original file and neither in the txt and html formats on Datatracker.
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.
* 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).
Terminology is indeed taken from RFC 9499 - this is clearly mentioned in the document.
It is written in British English.
* 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.)
There is an ABNF definition in Section 2.1. In short: The version tag is case-sensitive and should be: v=FORSALE1; Content tags (fcod=, ftxt=, furi=, fval=) should be lowercase.Furthermore I have put URI schemes (http:, https:, mailto: and tel:) between <tt></tt> and single quotes - but I am open to suggestions to change that into double quotes if you deem that to be more appropriate.
DNS RRtypes are written in uppercase (TXT, CNAME, DNAME) - the same applies to the TTL.
Term "_for-sale" in the text is written between double quotes. So are the content tags ("fcod=", "ftxt=", etc.). Please note: in examples they are obviously written without quotes.
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).
ACK.
* References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated to point to the replacement I-D.
ACK.
* References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
ACK.
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 believe everything is good, and idnits seems to confirm this. idnit3 has some complaints, but not related to References: https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/results?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-davids-forsalereg-21.xml
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?
No contentious text that should be handled with extra care.Section 6 (Implementation Status) should be removed as per RFC 7942. This is clearly stated with a 'NOTE TO RFC EDITOR'.
The 'About This Document' Section should also be removed. An additional RFC Editor Note was provided by the IESG at the approval: Please make this change: OLD: Some URI schemes RECOMMENDED in Section 2.2.3 do not mandate NEW: Some URI schemes recommended in Section 2.2.3 do not mandateThe IANA Considerations Section has an empty Reference ('<this memo>'), that should be filled with the appropriate RFC number before publication.
I believe your will rewrite the Status of This Memo Section - is that correct?
5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these elements used consistently? * fixed width font (<tt/> or `)
I used ` while editing, but believe my tooling (Mmark) properly converted them into <tt>.
* italics (<em/> or *)
No.
* bold (<strong/> or **)
All RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 key words are bold, or at least I represented them with ** in the original Markdown, like for example **MUST**.
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.
Thanks, but no.
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.
No thanks.
8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document?
No. Thank you. With kind regards, -- Marco (author)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
