Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] The acknowledgments mentions the editor of this document; however, none of the authors has been listed as the editor (meaning "Ed." would appear after their name). Should one person (or more) be listed as the editor(s) of this document? (If not, this sentence will be changed to "The authors of this document".) Original: Editor of this document would like to thank the following ... --> 3) <!--[rfced] Abstract: Does the updated text convey the intended meaning? The idea is to not rely on "/" for meaning and to clarify how the first set of commands (FETCH, SEARCH, STORE, COPY, MOVE) relates to the second set (APPEND, UID EXPUNGE). Original: The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows servers to announce a limit on the number of messages that can be processed in a single FETCH/SEARCH/STORE/COPY/MOVE (or their UID variants), APPEND or UID EXPUNGE command. Current: The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows servers to announce a limit on the number of messages that can be processed in a single FETCH, SEARCH, STORE, COPY, or MOVE command (or their UID variants), or in a single APPEND or UID EXPUNGE command. [And similarly in the Introduction] --> 4) <!-- [rfced] May the first sentences of the Abstract and Introduction be updated to simply point to RFC 9051 rather than RFC 3501, as RFC 9501 is the current version of IMAP? Because there is already an explicit statement in Section 1 that the extension is compatible with "both IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051]", please consider whether in other instances throughout the document the reference to RFC 3501 may be updated to RFC 9051. Abstract Original: The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows ... Perhaps: The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC 9051) allows ... Introduction Original: This document defines an extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol [RFC3501] for announcing ... Perhaps: This document defines an extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol [RFC9051] for announcing ... --> 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3.1: May this text be updated as follows? Should "EXPUNGE" be "UID EXPUNGE" here? Original: 3.1. Returning limits on the number of messages processed in a single SEARCH/FETCH/STORE/COPY/MOVE/APPEND/EXPUNGE command Perhaps Option A: 3.1. Returning Limits on the Number of Messages Processed in a Single Command (SEARCH, FETCH, STORE, COPY, MOVE, APPEND, EXPUNGE) or Option B (to simplify): 3.1. Returning Limits on the Number of Messages Processed in a Single Command --> 6) <!--[rfced] FYI, line breaks have been added in order to fit the line-width restrictions of the text output. Please let us know if changes are needed. --> 7) <!--[rfced] This document mentions the "message set parameter" twice. Will this be clear to the reader? We do not see mention of this term in RFC 9051 or other RFCs. Current: (For the MOVE command, the message set parameter needs to be ... [...] (For the STORE command, the message set parameter also needs to be ... --> 8) <!--[rfced] The first item uses notation; the second uses words. May this be updated as follows for consistency? Original: Operations on a mailbox that has <= N messages are not affected. In a mailbox with more than N messages: Suggested: * Operations are not affected on a mailbox that has N messages or fewer. * In a mailbox with more than N messages: Or (if you prefer notation): * Operations on a mailbox that has <= N messages are not affected. * In a mailbox with > N messages: --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element and let us know if any should be marked as sourcecode (or another element) instead. FYI, we updated artwork to sourcecode type="abnf" in Section 5. Please confirm that this is accurate. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 10) <!-- [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. --> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have removed the index from this document, as an index with a single entry does not seem useful. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Feb 3, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/02/03 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 * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9738.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9738 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9738 (draft-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit-10) Title : IMAP MESSAGELIMIT Extension Author(s) : A. Melnikov, A. P. Achuthan, V. Nagulakonda, L. Alves WG Chair(s) : Jiankang Yao, Bron Gondwana Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
