Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We note that the document action includes the following: This document is the product of the IRTF Open Meeting RAG (irtfopen). And we see that the markdown originally used the following: workgroup: "IRTF" consensus: true We believe the Status of This Memo should reflect that it is a product of the IRTF. While the consensus bit was set to true in the markdown, we have removed it from the XML file to get what we think is the right Status of This Memo. It currently matches option 21 (IRTF Informational (No RG)) from the list of possible Status of This Memos <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt>. Please review and let us know if changes are needed. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 indicates that the level of review should be indicated early in the document. RFC 5743: o The breadth of review the document has received must also be noted. For example, was this document read by all the active research group members, only three people, or folks who are not "in" the RG but are expert in the area? Do you want to add something more to the following text that appears in the Introduction? This document represents the consensus of the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG). It is not an IETF product and is not a standard. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether this sentence can be clarified. Original: Harassment or disruption due to the posting of messages that are inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or the repeated posting of off-topic material, on these lists and discussion forums will not be tolerated. Perhaps A: Harassment or disruption on these lists and discussion forums due to posting messages that are inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or due to the repeated posting of off-topic material, will not be tolerated. Perhaps B: The following will not be tolerated on these lists and discussion forums: * Harassment * Disruption * Inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate * Repeated posting of off-topic material --> 4) <!-- [rfced] They use of "they" and "their" is somewhat confusing in this sentence. Please review and consider whether the updates clarify the intended meaning. Original: These documents are encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large, but authors must ensure that prior work on which they are based, including their own prior work, is appropriately cited and acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of prior work and are written with the permission of any co-authors. Perhaps: These documents are encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large. However, Authors must ensure that prior work on which current work is based, including the authors' own prior work, is appropriately cited and acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of prior work and are written with the permission of any coauthors. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We wonder whether the mention of English here should be generalized so it applies to communication challenges related to all languages. Focussing on English as the de facto language makes sense in the following section. Original: Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon in both spoken and written communication. When faced with English that may be difficult to understand, IRTF participants should make a sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in conversation to clarify when necessary. Perhaps: Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon in both spoken and written communication. When communication difficulties arise, IRTF participants should make a sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in conversation to clarify when necessary. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] As we believe the goal of this reference is to note the IRTF's adoption of the IETF anti-harassment policy, we have updated the reference title to match what appears on the IRTF page. Please let us know if you prefer to refer to the IETF's anti-harassment policy. Original: [ANTI-HARASSMENT] "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013, <https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment>. Current: [ANTI-HARASSMENT] IRTF, "Anti-Harassment Policy", <https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment>. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] The NIST DOI returns "WITHDRAWN_Guidance for NIST staff on using inclusive language in documentary standards." Would you like to include the web.archive.org link the IESG now points to from the IESG Statement on inclusive language? https://web.archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf Original: [NISTIR8366] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards", Interagency or Internal Report 8366 (NISTIR 8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April 2021, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366>. Suggested: [NISTIR8366] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards", Interagency or Internal Report 8366 (NISTIR 8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April 2021, <https://web. archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/ nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf>. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We have lowercased "research group" and "research group chair" because they were not referring to specific research groups. Please review and let us now if any updates are desired. --> 9) <!-- [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. RFC Editor On Mar 16, 2025, at 9:28 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/03/16 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9775 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9775 (draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-08) Title : IRTF Code of Conduct Author(s) : C. Perkins WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
