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. 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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]
