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.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
While discussing the submission tool, there needs to be a button
in the confirmation stage. Just opening the page really leaves the
process open to submission race attacks.
You should be able to view prior to final acceptance/rejection.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf