Thanks Alice. I looked at the files. The changes are looking good to me. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks,Arun
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, February 20, 2025, 11:18 AM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: Arun, Vikram, Luis, Murray is correct; this is a reminder that we await word from your regarding this document's readiness for publication, or any further changes. The files are at the locations below. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Feb 20, 2025, at 7:44 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we're waiting for approvals from the remaining three authors here. > > -MSK > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:12 AM Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Alexey, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Re: #4, you wrote: > > I have slight preference to listing both in the Abstract. Is that Ok? > > > Yes. Updated "(RFC 3501/RFC 9051)" to "(RFCs 3501 and 9051)". Please review. > > Re: #8, we went with the prose explanation (rather than notation) because > this isn't a pseudocode or note-like section. > > > The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9738-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9738 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 10:30 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> > > wrote: > > > > Dear RFC Editor, > > > > > > On 04/02/2025 06:25, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >> 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".) > >> > > This is a very reasonable suggestion. > > > >> > >> 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] > >> > > This is fine. > >> > >> --> > >> > >> > >> 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 ... > >> > > I have slight preference to listing both in the Abstract. Is that Ok? > >> > >> 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 ... > >> --> > >> > > The above is fine, as long as you keep the following sentence as is: > > This extension is compatible with both > > IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051]. > > > > > > > >> 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3.1: May this text be updated as follows? > >> Should "EXPUNGE" be "UID EXPUNGE" here? > >> > > Actually both are covered by this section. > > > >> > >> 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 > >> > > I think I like Option B. > >> > >> --> > >> > >> > >> 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? > >> > > I think so, as there is only one parameter that matches the description. > >> 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: > >> > > Either alternative is fine. The latter? > >> > >> --> > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> > > That is correct. > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> > > Ok! > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Alexey >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
