Replies inline.

> Den 22. jul. 2026 kl. 12.24 skrev [email protected]:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as 
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
> values for "type"
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types)
> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. 
> -->

This "sourcecode" doesn't match any of those types. It's monospaced plain-text. 
I would just leave it without a "type".


> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] The file below lists terms enclosed in <tt> in this document.
> Some of these terms appear both with and without <tt>. Please review to
> ensure the usage of <tt> is correct and consistent.  Let us know if any
> updates are needed.
> 
> <tt>ESEARCH</tt>
> <tt>EXISTS</tt>
> <tt>EXPUNGE</tt>
> <tt>LIMIT</tt>
> <tt>NO</tt>
> <tt>TOOFEW</tt>
> <tt>TOOMANY</tt>
> <tt>UIDBATCHES</tt>
> <tt>VANISHED</tt>
> 
> <tt>163886:99703</tt>
> <tt>163886:99697</tt>
> <tt>99702:99697</tt>
> <tt>99696:20358</tt>
> <tt>7829:302</tt>
> <tt>7829:1</tt>
> <tt>4:1</tt>
> <tt>1:4</tt>
> <tt>$</tt>
> -->

Yes, these should all use <tt>.


> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added an expansion for the following 
> abbreviation
> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. 
> 
> Unique Identifier (UID)
> -->

Yes, that's correct.


> 4) <!-- [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. 
> 
> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for 
> clarity.  
> While the NIST website 
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
>  
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  
> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> -->

I like Ken's suggestion to use "conventional" instead of "traditional".



/Daniel

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to