> Den 23. feb. 2026 kl. 15.48 skrev Sarah Tarrant > <[email protected]>: > > Hi Daniel, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Regarding: >>> 6) 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 >>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> n/a > > > Perhaps some artwork got converted during the posting process, because I'm > seeing sourcecode throughout the file, beginning in Section 3.1. > > Please double-check the XML file and let us know if there is a sourcecode > type we can add or if the sourcecode needs to be updated to artwork.
These are example exchanges between the mail client and mail server. These are using <sourcecode> + CDATA, but since it’s not source code, there’s no associated sourcecode type. I hope that makes sense? /Daniel > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > >> On Feb 22, 2026, at 8:49 AM, Daniel Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Den 20. feb. 2026 kl. 21.40 skrev Sarah Tarrant >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>> 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). >> >> RFC 9051 >> >>> * 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.) >> >> n/a >> >>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >>> References section 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). >> >> We intentionally (as previously noted) want to keep both the reference to >> RFC 3501 and RFC 9051. >> >>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>> >>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >>> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was >>> drafted? >> >> There was a fair amount of discussion around the exact wording of section >> 3.1.3 "Batch Sizes". >> >>> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as >>> such >>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> >> Section 6 "Implementation Status" should be removed. >> >>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >>> the same way? >> >> No. >> >>> 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 **) >> >> Yes, used consistently, as far as I can tell. >> >>> >>> 6) 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 >>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> n/a >> >>> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >> >> No. >> >> >>>> On Feb 20, 2026, at 2:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-mailmaint-imap-uidbatches-22, which has been >>>> approved for publication as >>>> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>> >>>> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it >>>> and have started working on it. >>>> >>>> If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or >>>> if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), >>>> please send us the file at this time by attaching it >>>> in your reply to this message and specifying any differences >>>> between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. >>>> >>>> You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. >>>> Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, >>>> your document will then move through the queue. The first step that >>>> we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to >>>> RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting >>>> steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. >>>> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >>>> (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). >>>> >>>> You can check the status of your document at >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>> >>>> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >>>> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed >>>> our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you >>>> to perform a final review of the document. >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> The RFC Editor Team >>>> >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
