on 2007-01-24 15:14 Edward Lewis said the following:
At 0:06 +0100 1/24/07, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
So the answer is that the requirements for this are in the ID-Checklist, which
applies to drafts that are submitted for IESG consideration, rather than in
the ID-Guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) which apply
to draft submitted to internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org in general.
The ID-Checklist is referenced from the same page you referred to earlier,
http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, a couple of lines below the reference and link to
You're right, and I noticed all of that.
What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my
submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official
feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official
word. After all, one recommendation was to just use the XML2RFC tool
and not bother interpreting the requirements.
Ah, I see.
Apparently my draft did finally get announced - although I haven't
checked to see which version came out. (I.e., which -00, differing
in boilerplates.) What I'm trying to vent here is a plea to make the
instructions for submitting a draft a bit clearer, for instance,
recommend a run of the nits tool and also say whether or not the nits
tool's assessment is binding or not.
Right. This should improve when the web-based draft submission tool
(based on the RFC 4228 specification) comes online, which is planned
to happen in time for Prague.
Currently, the secretariat has a separate script to check ID-Guidelines
conformance, and its results aren't always identical with those of
idnits. When the web-based submission tool comes online, it will
use idnits in an ID-Guidelines checking mode instead of a separate
script, so the results of the ID-Guidelines section of the idnits
check should always match the automated checking done by the submission
tool, and the submission tool should show clearly what was amiss if
a problem is found with a submission.
idnits will continue to indicate non-conformance with the ID-Checklist,
too, but errors reported in this section of the output only becomes a
show-stopper at the time the document is sent to the IESG. ( That
doesn't mean that ID-Checklist nits can't be fixed earlier, of course ;-)
I hope that helps a bit.
Ietf mailing list