IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Xml-sg-cmt] [AD] <u>: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9290 <draft-ietf-core-problem-details-08> for your review

Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> Mon, 12 September 2022 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sginoza@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: xml-sg-cmt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml-sg-cmt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A723C14F692; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xSBXvAuufCAX; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B03C14F737; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCE84280C0F; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JbQLdl6mFlXq; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (2603-8000-9603-b513-c5a8-a1ee-b04e-aff8.res6.spectrum.com [IPv6:2603:8000:9603:b513:c5a8:a1ee:b04e:aff8]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A0F4243EFA; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <09F4BF47-84A8-4F37-A1F9-345761CC04A7@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:34:42 -0700
Cc: Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@arm.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>, "core-ads@ietf.org" <core-ads@ietf.org>, "xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org" <xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org>, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, Alexis Rossi <rsce@rfc-editor.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <382E70EA-DD5B-48D6-8CF7-70F23522D6F6@amsl.com>
References: <20220804195913.906BF55ECC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <557D1A94-9729-4D7E-90B4-D53B6A0DEDEE@tzi.org> <DB9PR08MB6524313A6D026E0F63B483AF9C719@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <629C2E8C-A79C-4CBF-AE49-CEC9C8C0B5F2@amsl.com> <69949BE3-B08B-4780-9FE5-ABA415DFBECA@tzi.org> <C9D1D91E-706C-41EC-8358-FE6D2D15ADF0@tzi.org> <DB9PR08MB6524FE3B48BFEE73627B58D69C709@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <4018FA5D-1031-437C-B9D6-A496A6B100B8@tzi.org> <7E8CED15-A7F7-4F9B-B54D-C858B7E64255@amsl.com> <40DB4CD3-2D93-4481-BFB6-7F374A4128B6@tzi.org> <37BDB141-B704-476E-BC06-C58AD319CAA7@amsl.com> <0DB1E862-25B5-491C-ACC1-13AD9ED9743B@tzi.org> <DB9PR08MB6524DBA3C87BDBF8BAE1F7FA9C419@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <62BA61C2-0558-4C4F-A138-11F8C8EF159E@tzi.org> <76F4210F-CDB4-4824-824E-79BF9E4CAE08@amsl.com> <CAL0qLwa9sQZqWe8c-pgAobA__feSY=+68rUkryK2EEYMc9DVBg@mail.gmail.com> <1B242483-1E4E-4ECE-972A-871BA046049B@tzi.org> <09F4BF47-84A8-4F37-A1F9-345761CC04A7@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml-sg-cmt/V4F-3JEmigpmIQTlnUEM9_Re8eA>
Subject: Re: [Xml-sg-cmt] [AD] <u>: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9290 <draft-ietf-core-problem-details-08> for your review
X-BeenThere: xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working list for the xml and style guide change management team <xml-sg-cmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml-sg-cmt>, <mailto:xml-sg-cmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml-sg-cmt/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml-sg-cmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sg-cmt>, <mailto:xml-sg-cmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:35:18 -0000

Hi All,

Murray, we have noted your approval for the updates in A.3 on the AUTH48 page.

Authors, we updated the text as suggested.  In addition, we used <artwork align=“right”>.  This is an improvement for the text, as the string appears within the printed page (as opposed to well beyond the right margin).  The display appears to be the same in the text, html, and pdf.  Are there any objections to using align=“right” here?  

The files have been posted here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290.xml

Diff of the most recent updates: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)

AUTH48 diff: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9290-auth48diff.html

Thanks,
Sandy 



> On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:52 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> What should the authors of RFC 9290-to-be do next?
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
>> On 8. Sep 2022, at 11:11, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2022-09-08, at 10:36, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Looks OK to me, except that in the modified part of that appendix, "RTL" is all-caps in one place but then all lowercase in the next spot.  Shouldn't they be consistent?
>> 
>> The other usages of “rtl” in the document are in combinations such as “base-rtl”, or as an echo of the CDDL name given in A.2.
>> 
>> In the sentence leading in to the example, RTL is given as a plain-english abbreviation of “right-to-left”, which is good for search engines.  Experience indicates that it is good if examples are self-contained, so an implementer that only uses the example still can derive value from it.  The second occurrence in the text for the example is again an echo of the CDDL name (and is styled in typewriter font).
>> 
>> So, no, I don’t think they need to be (or should be) consistent in capitalization.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Xml-sg-cmt mailing list
> Xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sg-cmt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email