Hi Damien, Actually, <sourcecode> is a good option for the message definitions. It is a better option than <artwork>, which is typically for diagrams. (For more info, see: https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#sourcecode)
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 23, 2026, at 7:36 PM, Damien Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Sarah Tarrant wrote: > >> Hi Damien, >> >> Thank you for your reply. >> >> Regarding: >>>> 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 >>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>> >>> There is no source code in this document. >> >> >> Perhaps some artwork got converted during the posting process, because I'm >> seeing sourcecode throughout the file. For example, in Section 2: >> >> <sourcecode> >> uint32 length >> byte type >> byte[length - 1] contents >> </sourcecode> >> >> 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. > > Sorry, I interprested "source code" to mean instructions and not the > <sourcecode> element. > > This document has none of the former, but plenty of the latter. The > stuff in <sourcecode> blocks are message definitions. Did I use the > wrong element type? > > -d -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
