On 2011-02-24 17:25 Worley, Dale R (Dale) said:
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Henrik Levkowetz [henrik(_at_)levkowetz(_dot_)com]
Only errors will prevent an automatic draft submission from going through;
ignore the warnings and comments to your heart's content for that purpose.
Are you saying that one can order the draft submission process to
continue even if the submission tool considers the draft to violate
idnits? I had no idea that was possible; I believe (from memory) that
that is not clear from the error output.
This is at the top of the idnits output in submission checking mode:
"Showing Errors (**), Warnings (==), and Comments (--).
Errors MUST be fixed before draft submission."
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the complaints against the requirements of
1id-guidelines.txt rather than against the tool which checks the
requirements if the problem is that the requirements are too strict.
Based on the user interface principle that each error message should
make it clear what possible next steps are, perhaps your advice
"either submit a bug report about the tool or direct a complaint
against the requirements of 1id-guidelines.txt [give link]" should be
provided in any message that the idnits-checker has rejected a draft.
It would probably reduce the number of non-useful gripes.
It would also add noise (i.e., text which to most people most of the
time would carry no relevant information, and would just have to be
ignored) to each and every idnits report.
If you google for 'idnits', go to the first hit and click on 'feedback'
you'll be able to send feedback to the right place. Or go to
tools.ietf.org and click on idnits, and do the same. I think that
should be easy enough, without adding more noise to the world.
Ietf mailing list