From henrik@levkowetz.com Wed Oct 5 04:27:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE6B21F8B0A for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:27:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.618, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDyX-TRcbRzP for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yard.public.resource.org (unknown [192.101.98.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF74121F8CB4 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [194.146.105.14]) by yard.public.resource.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id p95BTsiG028326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:29:58 -0700 Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:57944 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1RBPfS-0001sd-Dq; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:29:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4E8C3FA5.4000606@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:29:41 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xml2rfc References: <20110930071957.GA13021@miek.nl> In-Reply-To: <20110930071957.GA13021@miek.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0B072577DC5BF5B818E98F0F" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] pandoc2rfc X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:27:22 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0B072577DC5BF5B818E98F0F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Miek, On 2011-09-30 09:19 Miek Gieben said: > Hello, >=20 > I've created an xslt that transforms DocBook XML (as created by Pandoc)= > to xml2rfc XML. This allows one to write in Pandoc > (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) and then convert it to xml2rfc: >=20 > Pandoc -> DocBook XML -> xml2rfc XML -> draft And I see that Pandoc supports reStructuredText, which is something I've wanted to use to write drafts! (I actually started a rst -> xml2rfc converter project at one point, but never found enough time to bring it to fruition). I'm very happy to see your project! > The pandoc2rfc code can be found on github: https://github.com/miekg/pa= ndoc2rfc >=20 > The included README.mkd can be converted to a draft by running make (on= ly=20 > tested on Ubuntu Linux). >=20 > Good things about Pandoc are that is very easy to learn/write > and that it converts to almost anything. >=20 > Pandoc is a format inspired by Markdown > (http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/), but with extra features= =2E >=20 > Comments welcome. I see that one currently need to provide 3 different files in order to '$ make' a draft. If you can bring this along to the point where everyth= ing necessary to build a draft is included in the one markdown file, I'd love= to make this available as a web service on the tools servers (with your permission, of course). Best regards, Henrik --------------enig0B072577DC5BF5B818E98F0F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAk6MP6UACgkQeVhrtTJkXCNazwCfeBZ7Kne3q0RgCz7MUGYHkwF7 lYIAoJPr6rhADENr9KVR+DmsTyp/F8Ox =m/N7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0B072577DC5BF5B818E98F0F-- From wesley.george@twcable.com Mon Oct 10 09:24:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE7621F8C45 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:24:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.107 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9kb5c3O7dqJ for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B910021F846A for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,664,1309752000"; d="scan'208,217";a="283635586" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 10 Oct 2011 12:21:02 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.28]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:24:23 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: "xml2rfc@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:24:21 -0400 Thread-Topic: XMLMind 5 breaks xml2rfc-xxe add-on Thread-Index: AcyHaRErGpPpjXwSSBeEsn3K6Fh3xA== Message-ID: <34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB11D941A3@PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB11D941A3PRVPEXVS04corpt_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:34:20 -0700 Cc: "xml2rfc-xxe-users@googlegroups.com" Subject: [xml2rfc] XMLMind 5 breaks xml2rfc-xxe add-on X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:24:25 -0000 --_000_34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB11D941A3PRVPEXVS04corpt_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I see that this is already posted on the Google Groups page for xml2rfc-xx3= , but thus far there have been no responses, so I thought I'd try here in c= ase there's some overlap. Does anyone know what broke and when it might be = fixed with the upgrade to XMLmind 5.0? I can't even open my current draft x= ml files in XMLMind since upgrading, because it bombs out on initial file p= arse with an error message saying that it can't find rfc2629.dtd, and it ap= pears to be looking in the same directory on my machine as the xml file I t= ried to open. Is there a workaround for this other than simply using a text= editor and editing the raw XML file? Thanks, Wes ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. --_000_34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB11D941A3PRVPEXVS04corpt_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see that this is already posted on the Google Grou= ps page for xml2rfc-xx3, but thus far there have been no responses, so I th= ought I’d try here in case there’s some overlap. Does anyone kn= ow what broke and when it might be fixed with the upgrade to XMLmind 5.0? I can’t even open my current draft xml f= iles in XMLMind since upgrading, because it bombs out on initial file parse= with an error message saying that it can’t find rfc2629.dtd, and it = appears to be looking in the same directory on my machine as the xml file I tried to open. Is there a workaround for t= his other than simply using a text editor and editing the raw XML file?

 

Thanks,

 

Wes

 


This E-mail and any of its a= ttachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is = privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner = Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you a= re not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that = any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to th= e contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have receiv= ed this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanent= ly delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
 --_000_34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB11D941A3PRVPEXVS04corpt_-- From chris.ridd@isode.com Wed Oct 12 06:42:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA4221F8ABB for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:42:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCV+NQKVGRg8 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FF121F8AF9 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.138] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:42:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4E959954.4000100@isode.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:42:44 +0100 From: Chris Ridd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 To: xml2rfc@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] Updating citation libraries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:42:54 -0000 Hi, What is the correct address to submit updates for (in my case) the "Miscellanous" citation library? The page suggests emailing webmaster@xml.resource.org but that address just bounces. Cheers, Chris From henrik@levkowetz.com Wed Oct 19 04:10:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209FB21F85B5 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m971pJ-Q8hTN for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6F121F85B8 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:56449 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RGU1X-0004hY-1v; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:09:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9EAFE5.4080709@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:09:25 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Ridd References: <4E959954.4000100@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4E959954.4000100@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: chris.ridd@isode.com, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Updating citation libraries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:10:16 -0000 Hi Chris, On 2011-10-12 15:42 Chris Ridd said: > Hi, > > What is the correct address to submit updates for (in my case) the > "Miscellanous" citation library? Please send them to webmaster@tools.ietf.org (at least for now). > The page suggests emailing > webmaster@xml.resource.org but that address just bounces. Hmm. Right. The MX record is pointing to the old host of the site. Should probably have been updated when the A and AAAA addresses were updated. Tony, do you think you could get that changed? Best regards, Henrik From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Thu Oct 20 21:38:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F8C11E8099 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMD0tGqac4Y0 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423EA11E8096 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so3586374wwe.13 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=MsOPWSZbVTdGLQI6isnZf9fv+nR/SgdpTO4JHO2b9wU=; b=tK1iZv4CXmdFONZdq47qHYhJKSaN5w2boGbXpdPdK1THy0A4ruHFXDHbH3u6iw5f2s +uC+EUI4nSI3MdeAHPIOtH0XuqghqDoHCRbWhk0gkek4MzeQfv3RS2sqkPwhlJLLhsfq fkLzq7jQMfs4RH2/F0wY9lnOL9QdbMFTUbnoo= Received: by 10.216.230.218 with SMTP id j68mr1116021weq.77.1319171919223; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:37:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Ellermann Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:37:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: IETF xml2rfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:38:42 -0000 Hi, so far I only tried "private" drafts for OpenSPF and "normal" drafts intended to be RFCs. Yesterday I wanted an "unusual" draft *not* intended to be a RFC. 1st attempt: topblock="no" That was a bad idea, the datatracker upload rejected it, and when I didn't cancel the rejected submission, because I thought uploading a fixed version will be good enough, the datatracker upload logic entered a silly state. Suggestion: Add a Caveat to the topblock documentation. 2nd attempt: try to get the cancel URL by mail That doesn't work for topblock="no", apparently there is some logic depending on the first page even if the user is logged in with a known e-mail address and password. 3rd attempt: try to bypass the stuck version 02 with a 03 That doesn't work, draft NN+1 cannot be submitted while the "work in progress" draft NN cannot be cancelled. 4th attempt: Manual (e-mail) submission of a fixed 02 That does not work for ipr="none". Suggestion: For any date after the original ipr="none" expired replace it on the fly by the ipr="nofullshit" de jour. Apparently this is ipr=""noDerivativesTrust200902" at the moment. 5th attempt: (outcome not yet clear) To suppress the non-applicable WG I tried   as WG. If submissionType="independent" did anything I'm not sure what it did. There is apparently no way to suppress the intended status. Maybe add category="none" with default ipr="noDerivativesTrust200902" for drafts not intended to be published as RFC. Minor nit: xml2rfc strict="yes" insists on the presence of a section with Security Considerations. This could be disabled for the category="none" suggested above, because an independent non-WG draft not intended to be a RFC does not necessarily need Security Considerations. Of course I could simply use strict="no", but for various reasons I prefer strict="yes" whenever possible. -Frank From henrik@levkowetz.com Fri Oct 21 07:05:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7335021F87F0 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fd0GAdy85uq2 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DFA21F849C for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:59889 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RHFiz-0005gq-J1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:05:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:05:28 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:05:49 -0000 Hi Frank, On 2011-10-21 06:37 Frank Ellermann said: > Hi, so far I only tried "private" drafts for OpenSPF and > "normal" drafts intended to be RFCs. Yesterday I wanted > an "unusual" draft *not* intended to be a RFC. > > 1st attempt: topblock="no" > > That was a bad idea, the datatracker upload rejected it, > and when I didn't cancel the rejected submission, because > I thought uploading a fixed version will be good enough, > the datatracker upload logic entered a silly state. > > Suggestion: Add a Caveat to the topblock documentation. Makes sense. Without the first-page header neither document author extraction or document date extraction will succeed. > 2nd attempt: try to get the cancel URL by mail > That doesn't work for topblock="no", apparently there is > some logic depending on the first page even if the user > is logged in with a known e-mail address and password. Here I don't understand why you didn't just cancel using the web interface? This is the expected way to cancel, so if it doesn't work I'd like to understand why, so it can be fixed ... I tried it myself: Created a document with , uploaded it, got the meta-extraction errors, and cancelled it, without any problems, I believe? > 3rd attempt: try to bypass the stuck version 02 with a 03 > That doesn't work, draft NN+1 cannot be submitted while > the "work in progress" draft NN cannot be cancelled. That is as designed. > 4th attempt: Manual (e-mail) submission of a fixed 02 > That does not work for ipr="none". Suggestion: For any > date after the original ipr="none" expired replace it on > the fly by the ipr="nofullshit" de jour. Apparently this > is ipr=""noDerivativesTrust200902" at the moment. Replacing ipr='none' with something else may give a document with different IPR restrictions than the document author intended -- I don't think that's good. Possibly the tool should produce no output for 'ipr="none"', and suggest the valid possibilities. > 5th attempt: (outcome not yet clear) > To suppress the non-applicable WG I tried   as WG. That still leaves "Network Working Group" at the top. Maybe you could use None? > If submissionType="independent" did anything I'm not sure > what it did. There is apparently no way to suppress the > intended status. Maybe add category="none" with default > ipr="noDerivativesTrust200902" for drafts not intended to > be published as RFC. That could be a possibility, yes. > Minor nit: xml2rfc strict="yes" insists on the presence > of a section with Security Considerations. This could be > disabled for the category="none" suggested above, because > an independent non-WG draft not intended to be a RFC does > not necessarily need Security Considerations. Of course > I could simply use strict="no", but for various reasons I > prefer strict="yes" whenever possible. Understood. Makes sense. Best regards, Henrik From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Fri Oct 21 17:20:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE03921F8541 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmC2xBsm6CSh for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EDA21F850B for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so5043921wyh.31 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0YOTygHu4gG2fQx/aRsOoTiJtpFy4Le1EjU+Ko8hh6Y=; b=RBedOCL1hwWGceef5z6bc+SXnLcrT1jo1SSEti8qgf7wX56p1S6P8UFoZqzRB/flEM jLdqEPUCocnfi583A7HAhnbBnj+kdVf6GtqYn0IOwPu8ddGJuLkSH3GSwmFJb8gYIEbz dfmcYRMCxNpujeK21ETHCC6NcdiYUGUnIMO6c= Received: by 10.227.3.1 with SMTP id 1mr6304675wbl.77.1319242824210; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:19:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> References: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:19:43 +0200 Message-ID: To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:20:26 -0000 On 21 October 2011 16:05, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> I didn't cancel the rejected submission, because >> I thought uploading a fixed version will be good >> enough [...] >> 2nd attempt: try to get the cancel URL by mail [...] > Here I don't understand why you didn't just cancel > using the web interface? =A0This is the expected way > to cancel, so if it doesn't work I'd like to > understand why, so it can be fixed ... See above, "cancel" did not sound good, and I tried the "above all first upload a good draft" approach. But that killed the "immediate cancel opportunity" (I'm talking about two datatracker browser 'Tabs'.) Of course the effect upset me because I hate it when I'm excessively stupid. OTOH, why cancel something that is broken and not good enough for a submission? Instead of a volatile "immediate cancel" opportunity a simple "you lose" info (one of these xml2rfc jokes) would be far simpler. All xml2rfc online users know the drill, upload, get "you lose", fix and try again, repeat until ready. Of course *now* I know how this is supposed to work, and there is a good chance that I won't visit this trap and pitfall again. But I think this trap is not required at all in the workflow: A broken draft is a broken draft, there should be no need to "cancel" it. >> 3rd attempt: try to bypass the stuck version 02 >> with a 03 [...] > That is as designed. ACK, the NN+1 design is clear, there can't be a NN+1 if NN never made it. The design problem is that a broken NN can block the fixed NN' if an uploader did not immediately click "cancel". >> Suggestion: =A0For any date after the original >> ipr=3D"none" expired replace it on the fly by the >> ipr=3D"nofullshit" de jour. =A0Apparently this >> is ipr=3D""noDerivativesTrust200902" at the moment. > Replacing ipr=3D'none' with something else may give a > document with different IPR restrictions than the > document author intended -- I don't think that's > good. The documentation apparently says that the effect for some ipr=3D values depends on the date in the draft... If that's really so it's a cute feature, and it could be used consistently for generic names such as "full" or "none". BTW, in the given case I'd be quite happy if *somebody* violates this "no derivative" blurb and writes an RFC. All I wanted to have clear is that I don't volunteer for this job. This "not for RFC" use case is slightly unclear; but maybe it is only me. ;-) [5th attempt] >> To suppress the non-applicable WG I tried   >> as WG. > That still leaves "Network Working Group" at the > top. Oops, no,   worked for me. > Maybe you could use None? Yes, I considered "Non-WG" or "Independent submission" or closed WGs such as "HTML" or "Atom", but eventually settled on  . FWIW, presumably it is irrelevant, but after so many failures I wanted at least this bit of personal "boilerplate avoidance" in the I-D...-02. -Frank From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Oct 22 00:34:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4A221F8B35 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEl6o4Q-7Qg9 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3508321F87E2 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2011 07:34:29 -0000 Received: from p5DCC8207.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.130.7] by mail.gmx.net (mp066) with SMTP; 22 Oct 2011 09:34:29 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18L9GhsaHELuKX9XgTTuwBYARu3JTLKtrA/2Sv4mq 10TYEyjnKq7PwD Message-ID: <4EA271FC.4080506@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:34:20 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: [xml2rfc] @ipr, was: Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:34:42 -0000 On 2011-10-22 02:19, Frank Ellermann wrote: > ... >>> Suggestion: For any date after the original >>> ipr="none" expired replace it on the fly by the >>> ipr="nofullshit" de jour. Apparently this >>> is ipr=""noDerivativesTrust200902" at the moment. > >> Replacing ipr='none' with something else may give a >> document with different IPR restrictions than the >> document author intended -- I don't think that's >> good. > > The documentation apparently says that the effect for > some ipr= values depends on the date in the draft... > ... Yes, @ipr is confusing. Some values depend on the date, and that's good because if the actual IPR statement didn't change (as opposed to editorial changes), it's better not to bother people with changing their documents. "full", as far as I can tell, never was a supported value. Best regards, Julian From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Sat Oct 22 03:05:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD66321F8A66 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4-yje9rFt9e for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B0A21F8A64 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so4795352wwe.13 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:05:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=96plxCEn/Jp9BDY7tBSXTjUbKTlblUSVzFvYyZh5tMM=; b=vC1Ncyh7Ys2FYoUuVsWd8kntRAXqDbiDL5HeZPI0uqHkYT5CH9XHiFdaWL2AXzaHbT chGa9g7vIDvFDrlYpeTPyS1ypO0SVUYZaJruSvV2x5lph9mpZ15iud7EbwGR9ssFtxbr vByplLF46ySO2h9ZS1xXV5/bhYpBT5dKORPSc= Received: by 10.216.135.34 with SMTP id t34mr657623wei.62.1319277924166; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:05:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:04:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Ellermann Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:04:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] @ipr X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:05:25 -0000 On 22 October 2011 09:34, Julian Reschke wrote: > "full", as far as I can tell, never was a supported > value. ACK, my generic "fullsh?t" proposal never made it. I'd guess that many authors don't care about the details as long as it results in an acceptable I-D under the current rules. Reconstructing IPR boilerplates as they were in the past is a very special use case, actually I have no idea why or when folks would ever wish to do this. -Frank From henrik@levkowetz.com Sun Oct 23 06:53:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA7821F891D for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:53:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6+Dx9ZPttQXv for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335AC21F8562 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 90-230-136-60-no45.tbcn.telia.com ([90.230.136.60]:55652 helo=vigonier.local) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RHyUf-0005Ka-H9; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA41C5E.1000506@levkowetz.com> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:34 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 90.230.136.60 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:53:52 -0000 Hi Frank, On 2011-10-22 02:19 Frank Ellermann said the following: > On 21 October 2011 16:05, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >>> I didn't cancel the rejected submission, because >>> I thought uploading a fixed version will be good >>> enough > [...] >>> 2nd attempt: try to get the cancel URL by mail > [...] >> Here I don't understand why you didn't just cancel >> using the web interface? This is the expected way >> to cancel, so if it doesn't work I'd like to >> understand why, so it can be fixed ... > > See above, "cancel" did not sound good, and I tried > the "above all first upload a good draft" approach. > But that killed the "immediate cancel opportunity" > (I'm talking about two datatracker browser 'Tabs'.) Hmm. That doesn't sound right; it should always be possible to cancel a submission. Did you try to use the browser 'back' button to go back to the upload page you got after the first upload? I see in the database that there are two upload attempts, and they have different IDs, so it should be possible (still!) to go back to the original upload result page and do a cancel. > Of course the effect upset me because I hate it when > I'm excessively stupid. OTOH, why cancel something > that is broken and not good enough for a submission? > > Instead of a volatile "immediate cancel" opportunity > a simple "you lose" info (one of these xml2rfc jokes) > would be far simpler. All xml2rfc online users know > the drill, upload, get "you lose", fix and try again, > repeat until ready. I think the reason that we didn't take that path is that it removes the option to fix meta-information. But it should still be possible to improve on the current situation, and maybe the idea of providing the option to correcting the meta-information is sub-optimal. We will have to think about fixing that. Could I ask you to enter an issue about this for the submit/ component in the issue tracker at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ , please? > Of course *now* I know how this is supposed to work, > and there is a good chance that I won't visit this > trap and pitfall again. But I think this trap is not > required at all in the workflow: A broken draft is a > broken draft, there should be no need to "cancel" it. > >>> 3rd attempt: try to bypass the stuck version 02 >>> with a 03 > [...] >> That is as designed. > > ACK, the NN+1 design is clear, there can't be a NN+1 > if NN never made it. The design problem is that a > broken NN can block the fixed NN' if an uploader did > not immediately click "cancel". > >>> Suggestion: For any date after the original >>> ipr="none" expired replace it on the fly by the >>> ipr="nofullshit" de jour. Apparently this >>> is ipr=""noDerivativesTrust200902" at the moment. > >> Replacing ipr='none' with something else may give a >> document with different IPR restrictions than the >> document author intended -- I don't think that's >> good. > > The documentation apparently says that the effect for > some ipr= values depends on the date in the draft... > > If that's really so it's a cute feature, and it could > be used consistently for generic names such as "full" > or "none". BTW, in the given case I'd be quite happy > if *somebody* violates this "no derivative" blurb and > writes an RFC. All I wanted to have clear is that I > don't volunteer for this job. This "not for RFC" use > case is slightly unclear; but maybe it is only me. ;-) > > [5th attempt] >>> To suppress the non-applicable WG I tried   >>> as WG. > >> That still leaves "Network Working Group" at the >> top. > > Oops, no,   worked for me. Ah! Ok, I should try that again, then. >> Maybe you could use None? > > Yes, I considered "Non-WG" or "Independent submission" > or closed WGs such as "HTML" or "Atom", but eventually > settled on  . FWIW, presumably it is irrelevant, > but after so many failures I wanted at least this bit > of personal "boilerplate avoidance" in the I-D...-02. Understood. Best regards, Henrik From miekg@atoom.net Mon Oct 24 02:37:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2B321F8BA0 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:37:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.163 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i2vzqTiZbxkf for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yard.public.resource.org (unknown [192.101.98.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746EE21F8B79 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elektron.atoom.net (elektron.atoom.net [85.223.71.124]) by yard.public.resource.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id p9O9avDP016936 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:36:59 -0700 Received: by elektron.atoom.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8914B40020; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:36:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:36:51 +0200 From: Miek Gieben To: xml2rfc@xml.resource.org Message-ID: <20111024093651.GA18620@miek.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Vim/Mutt/Linux X-Home: http://www.miek.nl Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] pandoc2rfc X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:37:00 -0000 --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I just saw: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xml2rfc/current/msg03172.h= tml which I didn't receive per mail, but alas. Henrik Levkowetz placed this remark: > I see that one currently need to provide 3 different files in order to '$= make' > a draft. If you can bring this along to the point where everything neces= sary to > build a draft is included in the one markdown file, I'd love to make this > available as a web service on the tools servers (with your permission, of > course). First up: of course you can make use of this! :) I'm currently working on a draft and I love it. Markdown is so much easier then plain xml. As to making one markdown file, that is slightly more difficult. The problem stems from the fact that Pandoc does not support appendices. So there is no= way to know when to start the ... section. My current draft has a number of Pandoc source files which are stitched tog= ether by using . That seems to work satisfactory. grtz, --=20 Miek --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6lMbMACgkQJYuFzziA0PZGegCfY8+u68ratRWJneVj1rRG5eLo zmcAoO6ktG/FUAI1Wqs43ajLEPh8F4CE =2WrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm-- From akatlas@gmail.com Mon Oct 24 15:20:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C14211E81B8 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yJcnvN0Qu5Ap for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991A911E81B7 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so7465743ggn.31 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7yDnivn1gXIXnq7DLAF3Kp7PaN2dhloNjIKlTM6c/E8=; b=FdRtfzSHrD5sg2xWnJRi1KpIl38EuyHOLCqVMiFR0l4o7z0YaTSTXqhZtloamjnl6o ss42VKQVe+jYHF6Ba2UqgSsL1f0Q7VGIZGwT0g3YrjhcTN9dq8XdZNbO9h2fqVWryPD1 PMOn7+FtQ5wO0jikXamnBq/ptdTPklThYHNyw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.10.70 with SMTP id g6mr50852958pbb.65.1319494834044; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.82.12 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:20:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: xml2rfc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:20:20 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] XML that won't add toc... X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:20:35 -0000 Hi, I have a draft that I (just) submitted which does not generate a Table of Contents; it's 40 pages, so this is a bit painful. I have verified that my installation works with a different draft with the same header. I verified that the problem appears on the web-site's plugin (xml.resource.org) - though it doesn't process with strict (error at the "") line. The toc directives I have are straight from the template (and other version that worked!): Would anyone be interested in looking at this or giving suggestions on what to read? My TCL is a bit rusty. Thanks, Alia From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Oct 25 04:37:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DAF21F8B23 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.668, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYB0Z4ZBFWoZ for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BCFD21F8B22 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2011 11:37:05 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp025) with SMTP; 25 Oct 2011 13:37:05 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1871n14dBM78jcswc4B7lSyTAlMwtrmdxQDKURug8 +0O02A+9p2klZO Message-ID: <4EA69F58.4010306@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:36:56 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alia Atlas References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] XML that won't add toc... X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:37:08 -0000 On 2011-10-25 00:20, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi, > > I have a draft that I (just) submitted which does not generate a Table > of Contents; it's 40 pages, so this is a bit painful. > I have verified that my installation works with a different draft with > the same header. > I verified that the problem appears on the web-site's plugin > (xml.resource.org) - though > it doesn't process with strict (error at the " docName="draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-00" ipr="trust200902">") > line. > > The toc directives I have are straight from the template (and other > version that worked!): > > > > > > > > Would anyone be interested in looking at this or giving suggestions on > what to read? My TCL is a bit rusty. > ... You're not supposed to understand TCL, but it *would* be good to understand that XML is XML is XML, despite our old TCL-based tool accepting all kinds of ... crap. Run it through an XML parser, and you'll note that you haven't closed the DOCTYPE. xml2rfc "recovered" somehow, but apparently didn't see the processing instructions. Best regards, Julian From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Tue Oct 25 04:38:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7DB21F8B26 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:38:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.815 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLzrunrSmylC for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D515C21F8B22 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so486035wyh.31 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:38:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=q1ZTin3im/tfsi4ZVZF55xS62UXZg687JxobsObcBmQ=; b=pkQHcBUM4c1Ha2AbtvTsC+3wlro0IUYPYpGR0BQTvC/yC/DwgOOfwZsHP7CusOTKkI xne9I9eqF1IXLZ8eIHsKi2RWnhWCRoFV4wBeVwIbc+GprcRsG4QqNZCe7wtMikqIEDK1 w1ogNlhivxdOD7OUqHQ4YdV9kv3bKjSBE0I84= Received: by 10.227.208.77 with SMTP id gb13mr3423326wbb.4.1319542715073; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:38:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:37:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Frank Ellermann Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:37:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Alia Atlas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] XML that won't add toc... X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:38:36 -0000 On 25 October 2011 00:20, Alia Atlas wrote: > I have a draft that I (just) submitted which does > not generate a Table of Contents; it's 40 pages, > so this is a bit painful. Yes, a ToC is required for 15 (?) or more pages in an RFC. And for an I-D it's odd when it doesn't work for you. One quick and presumably stupid idea: > Test Sorry for wasting your time if that's not the problem. My homebrewn XML check doesn't insist on the space, and actually I think that it's optional. A question for the XML experts: Is white space between ? and > allowed? -Frank From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Tue Oct 25 05:42:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A979121F8B2B for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:42:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.836 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oe0PDHMzPEj5 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BB421F8B25 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so558964wyh.31 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mF+1j5cfjBF7XvxXshopuSJ387nrhm5poAsolWURaU=; b=PysYAz1IM3zlnEAcZcwqZyxAZTyDjIWkHO7UE73I07RGxvS7e1pQeX0Vhla5ERZrJ9 ZL7z9flB19ovAo4qt9hHsjvNPV6R/0JWAAo8N31q9Do+4Z6iA+ulx1cdOQbgRuDKOBAs vkzF9FANs42EEZkjHtKRJjuaugUhtWa/N2+ag= Received: by 10.227.208.77 with SMTP id gb13mr3785919wbb.4.1319546527096; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA41C5E.1000506@levkowetz.com> References: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> <4EA41C5E.1000506@levkowetz.com> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:41:27 +0200 Message-ID: To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:42:08 -0000 On 23 October 2011 15:53, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > That doesn't sound right; it should always be > possible to cancel a submission. =A0Did you try > to use the browser 'back' button to go back to > the upload page you got after the first upload? I *think* (could be wrong) that I tried obvious ideas to get back to the cancel-page, but it did not work. But I forgot the details, maybe there was a login between failure + new upload attempt. I got the "send cancel URL" form, but that didn't work without the notorious top page. (In fact it didn't tell me this, I can only guess that the form ignores the login and needs the "top page".) >> All xml2rfc online users know the drill, upload, >> get "you lose", fix and try again, repeat until >> ready. > I think the reason that we didn't take that path > is that it removes the option to fix meta- > information. Okay, my naive idea would be that a "good" version NN should always be able to replace any "bad" NN; for all values of "bad" =3D "too bad to be posted". A kind of "implicit cancel", if that concept helps with what you have now. Anything requiring more than one line of code or more than five minutes, only because I managed to find a dark corner for "missing top page", would be overkill: I promise that I won't try this again... :-) > We will have to think about fixing that. If it's a "we" divide "5 minutes" by thinking gurus. > Could I ask you to enter an issue about this for > the submit/component in the issue tracker at > =A0http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ , please? Testing this now: Thanks, Frank From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Oct 25 05:53:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA9B21F8B34 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:53:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMsXuQ9ONS+3 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5387721F8B33 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:59270 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RIgVL-0004f8-SI; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:53:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA6B13E.6060903@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:53:18 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <4EA17C28.2030909@levkowetz.com> <4EA41C5E.1000506@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: IETF xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Various nits X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:53:35 -0000 Hi Frank, On 2011-10-25 14:41 Frank Ellermann said: > On 23 October 2011 15:53, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> That doesn't sound right; it should always be >> possible to cancel a submission. Did you try >> to use the browser 'back' button to go back to >> the upload page you got after the first upload? > > I *think* (could be wrong) that I tried obvious > ideas to get back to the cancel-page, but it did > not work. But I forgot the details, maybe there > was a login between failure + new upload attempt. Ok. > I got the "send cancel URL" form, but that didn't > work without the notorious top page. (In fact it > didn't tell me this, I can only guess that the > form ignores the login and needs the "top page".) Uh. I see. It couldn't find a submitter email, so didn't know where to send the link, probably. >>> All xml2rfc online users know the drill, upload, >>> get "you lose", fix and try again, repeat until >>> ready. > >> I think the reason that we didn't take that path >> is that it removes the option to fix meta- >> information. > > Okay, my naive idea would be that a "good" version > NN should always be able to replace any "bad" NN; > for all values of "bad" = "too bad to be posted". > > A kind of "implicit cancel", if that concept helps > with what you have now. Anything requiring more > than one line of code or more than five minutes, > only because I managed to find a dark corner for > "missing top page", would be overkill: I promise > that I won't try this again... :-) Ok. I think it will take a bit of redesign, but I also think it would be a better design. >> We will have to think about fixing that. > > If it's a "we" divide "5 minutes" by thinking gurus. > >> Could I ask you to enter an issue about this for >> the submit/component in the issue tracker at >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ , please? > > Testing this now: > Thanks for this! Best regards, Henrik From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Mon Oct 31 11:15:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6A821F8D6F for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wITY7d2OPfME for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3148921F8D6C for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwi36 with SMTP id 36so1238688wwi.13 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=3hz0ogGYXKmW3mzwkPUToGWcudJDRopLiuuT0UaYehM=; b=UYYuNidHp/gCTCVLwJXSEsi99W9CIYqulqefgZig3BwgfrE4aHUwjGh92IZuAyOlfK CW1hESV8N33g0RYHK5/Stv5WKqbOSuvLJmgQs49uOYdk1dBcQNv27Pmtpc4TZeXh1ga5 kG7Wg51h5a6vvGCOoW/RFj7/5E6VYD/ov46eM= Received: by 10.227.60.131 with SMTP id p3mr22046952wbh.4.1320084917184; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Ellermann Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: IETF xml2rfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [xml2rfc] Two bugs (?) X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:15:19 -0000 Hi, apparently the experimental version does not yet support section links, e.g., results in [iana] instead of say [Section 3.1]. The release version and the experimental version ignore the rfcprocack PI. That used to work some years ago, it created credits with the complete xml2rfc version ID - important for debugging. The new (for me) feature is nice. -Frank