Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] In the following, should "sent items folder" be made
"\Sent mailbox"?
Original:
Supporting clients can present these messages differently in the sent
items folder...
-->
2) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions related to the IANA keyword
registrations:
a) We note that the template in RFC 5788 includes "Person & email
address to contact for further information:". This document does not
include this for any of the subsections of Section 9.1. We assume
this has been left off intentionally. If not, please let us know any
desired updates.
b) The template in RFC 5788 does not list "Scope". RFC 8621 lists it
before "Purpose (description)". Please let us know if any updates are
desirable to placement (i.e., should it be moved before Purpose or
follow Owner/Change controller?).
c) Related to the above, should "Purpose" be made "Purpose
(description)" for an exact match to the template?
d) The template in RFC 5788 contains the following:
Related keywords: (for example, "mutually exclusive with keywords Y
and Z")
We see the following in this document:
Section 4:
The $hasattachment and $hasnoattachment keywords are mutually
exclusive.
and Section 9.1.4 lists $hasnoattachment as a related keyword for
$hasattachment.
Please let us know if any updates should be made to either Section
9.1.4 to mention the mutual exclusivity or to Section 9.1.6 where
$hasnoattachment lists "Related keywords: None".
e) We see that the template in RFC 5788 lists "LIMITED USE" as a
possible value for Intended usage. Sections 9.1.12 and 9.1.15 use
"LIMITED" without "USE". Please let us know if an update should be
made.
f) The heading "Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic
action:" sounds like it must be one of those options (i.e., advisory
or automatic action). However, we see "No" for the following:
$MailFlagBit0
$MailFlagBit1
$MailFlagBit2
Please review and let us know if any updates are necessary.
g) In the following text, does the client also set the keyword during
message delivery (note that similar text occurs more than once):
Original:
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared: It is set by the server
during message delivery, or by the client (if neither
$hasattachment nor $hasnoattachment are currently set).
Perhaps A:
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared: It is set during message
delivery by the server or the client (if neither $hasattachment nor
$hasnoattachment is currently set).
Perhaps B:
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared: It is set by the server
during message delivery; otherwise, it is set by the client (if neither
$hasattachment nor $hasnoattachment are currently set).
-->
3) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to
abbreviation use throughout the document:
a) We have expanded abbreviations upon first use. Please review for accuracy.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to special text
marking throughout the file:
We see both <tt>$hasnoattachment</tt> and $hasnoattachment.
We see both <tt>$hasattachment</tt> and $hasattachment.
Note: the unmarked version appears in the (recurring) sentence "if neither
$hasattachment nor $hasnoattachment is currently set".
Please review and confirm that these appear as desired.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] We had the following question regarding terminology used
throughout the document:
We see "hasAttachment" Email property. Please confirm that the capping
scheme here should not match other uses (i.e., it should not be
"hasattachment"). -->
6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this
nature typically result in more precise language, which is
helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] A note to Neil: we have updated your initials in the
header to simply your first initial to match use in RFC 9670.
Please let us know if you'd prefer otherwise. -->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/05/07
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9979-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9979
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9979 (draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute-14)
Title : Registration of further IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox name
attributes
Author(s) : N. Jenkins, D. Eggert
WG Chair(s) : Ken Murchison, Murray Kucherawy
Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Charles Eckel
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
