Hi Daniel, Thank you for the clarification! We'll leave these elements marked as "sourcecode" in the XML but leave the type blank (as it is currently).
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 23, 2026, at 3:09 PM, Daniel Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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]
