One initial question below at point 5 - sourcecode
On 3/17/26 16:01, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
Author(s),
Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor
queue!
The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working with
you
as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce processing
time
and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please
confer
with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a
cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline
communication.
If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to this
message.
As you read through the rest of this email:
* If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to make
those
changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation of
diffs,
which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc
shepherds).
* If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any
applicable rationale/comments.
Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear from
you
(that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a reply).
Even
if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates to
the
document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document will
start
moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates
during AUTH48.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at
[email protected].
Thank you!
The RPC Team
--
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?
* Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
sections current?
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,
WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information
(e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in
RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at
<https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").
* Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that
editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization."
or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used
for token names." etc.)?
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).
* 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?
* Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such
(e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)).
* Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited
the same way?
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.)
The source document is written in asciidoc and uses metanorma to
process. I set the wrong type for abnf (I used "bnf") - can correct that.
However, the asciidoc generates something like this for examples:
<sourcecode
anchor="_e6e8329f-2f53-d95b-f684-b559638b5f76"><![CDATA[REASON:https://example.com/reason/delivered-on-time]]></sourcecode>
This was generated by the asciidoc
[source] ---- REASON:https://example.com/reason/delivered-on-time
----
How should examples be represented in XML? The above is actually
iCalendar but there's no type for that.
All the sourcecode elements except the following are icalendar, xml or
abnf. I do have this:
<sourcecode anchor="_eacbea81-341f-ff8c-8998-b0e7d3618e47"><![CDATA[ A "VTODO" calendar
component without the "DTSTART" and "DUE" (or
"DURATION") properties specifies a to-do that will be associated
with each successive calendar date, until it is completed.]]></sourcecode>
<t anchor="_b319a19b-d7da-8c18-c509-476f7e6b69fe">is replaced by</t>
<sourcecode anchor="_3445301e-5b67-5b5d-2dfd-8d6ef6f7c96d"><![CDATA[ A "VTODO" calendar
component without the "DTSTART" and "DUE"
properties specifies a to-do that will be associated
with each successive calendar date, until it is completed.]]></sourcecode>
</section>
This is replacement text for 5545 and I guess I'm looking for some sort of
preformatted text option. This appears at the end of section 11.1
6) Because this document updates RFC 5545, please review
the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this
document or are not relevant:
* RFC 5545 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5545)
7) 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.
8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 in
GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or document
shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test.
9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
document?
On Mar 17, 2026, at 2:57 PM,[email protected] wrote:
Author(s),
Your document draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-17, 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]
