Sarah: > 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 is still accurate? > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current?
Yes, these are still accurate. That said, I just realized that Appendix A needs an additional bullet: * The client MUST include the "supported_groups" extension in the ClientHello message. In addition, Eric Rescorla ahould be added to the list of names in the second paragraph in the Acknowledgments. > 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.) The double quotes around extension names align with the style set by RFC 8446. > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? The changes in Section 3 and Section 7 were very carefully negotiated in the TLS WG. > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Not that I can think of at this time. > 5) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (see information about > sourcecode types). The use of the TLS Grammar is unchanged from RFC 8773. > 6) This document is part of Cluster 430. > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please > provide > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. > If order is not important, please let us know. > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that > should be edited in the same way? For instance, parallel introductory text or > Security Considerations. [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] should be read before this document. > 7) Because this document obsoletes RFC 8773, please review > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 8773 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8773) The errata have been addressed (and references) in this document. > 8) 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. I did not use kramdown_rfc for this document. Russ -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
