Clarification below:
On 2007-11-25 22:39 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:
Hi Julian,
On 2007-11-25 22:26 Julian Reschke said the following:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:45 PM +0200 11/25/07, Jari Arkko wrote:
I'm telling this story in order to alert people to be careful.
Another option is that the RFC Editor should be more careful. It really
isn't that hard for the RFC Editor to run xml2rfc on the XML file and
wdiff it against the draft that is approved by the IESG, and bring
noticeable differences to the two parties.
This sounds to me that the submission process should ask *either* for
the TXT file or the XML file, and when the XML file was sent, use
xml2rfc to produce the TXT file.
Accepting only the TXT version is what the original spec says (see
RFC 4228) for the first version of the tool. Accepting and running the
XML file and verifying the txt file if one was supplied is part of a later
version of the tool. After multiple suggestions indicating that it would
be valuable to make it possible to upload the XML file also in the first
version, we made that change.
In other words, yes, this is a sensible suggestion, and it's part of the
spec, but it hasn't been implemented yet.
Since the draft submission tool is accepting XML files in addition to
TXT files, I'm referring to that procedure above. I completely agree
that it makes sense for the RFC Editor to check that the recievied XML
files correspond to the received and approved TXT file.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf