On 2010-02-27 13:17 William Allen Simpson said the following:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Your initial 'bugreport' contained no specifics whatsoever.
You inappropriately sent the 'tool is broken' message to the whole IETF
general discussion list, in addition to addressing me directly (so it's
not as if you didn't know where to direct a bug report).
All IETF draft submitters need to know promptly, as Monday is the deadline
for -00 version internet-drafts.
So you're still maintaining that it's good and right to send out a notice
of a problem widely and provide no information which makes it possible to
resolve it? Bah!
It took some time (2 hours) to figure out that you had written the tool
that generated the bad output, as the secretariat does not put your name
(nor the tool name nor the version number) in their response message.
I'm regretting wasting my time (finding you).
So am I.
And you probably shouldn't increment the .trivial for such a huge change.
That was really a major change (as was 1id_guidelines itself).
Maybe that's the reason the secretariat didn't think it was important
enough to install.
You're not duplicating what I've been saying. The tool *was* installed
on February 4th. Somewhere there's been a slip-up, but translating that
into evaluation of importance is nonsense.
All of the above earns you no respect with me, and that colours my
responses. Next time, send a bug report to the secretariat or to me
directly, containing specifics that lets us *fix* the problem, rather
than blazoning an unspecific and unhelpful 'Things don't work' message
across the sky, and you might get a different tone back.
It was reported to the secretariat directly ~13:53 EST by 'phone, but
could not be fixed promptly.
AFAICT, it's still not updated!
At this very moment:
Ooh, that's not good. The .01 version is only available on some of the
tools servers, not all. Fixed.
Note the author is missing here, too.
Funny. I see my name quite clearly on the web page there.
Also, the verbose output doesn't count line lengths correctly. Apparently,
it is including the non-printing FF in the count. Not good.
Also, this was somewhat amusing:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. 'RFC 3232') (Obsoleted by
Outstanding! Fails on the reference to RFC 1700 in the *title* of the
RFC 3232 reference that obsoleted RFC 1700:
I'm afraid I can't comment on this, as the error message is based on the
of the reference entry in your document, which you've not seen fit to provide,
although I requested it in my first note.
1432 [RFC 3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
1433 an On-line Database", January 2002.
At least the secretariat was smart enough to know that "**" pseudo-error
was bogus, and didn't include it in their message to me.
I'm very gratified that you actually expect a mere computer program written
by me to be able to make human grade intelligent evaluations of content.
As I wrote previously, get off your high horse. We really don't need the
My attitude to you, sir, is that you should make it possible for me to fix
things, by providing information instead of generalities of the "it doesn't
work" type. I do what I do as a volunteer, and I certainly don't need the
aggravation of broadcast generalities of this kind.
Next time, test to see that your own code was installed and
actually works. It's obvious that you never tested much of anything.
It would be obvious to you if you'd looked at the idnits report of your own
submission that idnits *had* been installed:
So I'm afraid that your idea of what's obvious doesn't count for much with
Ietf mailing list