Paul is correct. I-D Submission in quite intentionally less strict.
I have been out of the office and away from email for the last week,
and as a result, I have not fully caught up on this thread. However,
there are some things that seem to need clarification.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html
This web page provides guidelines for I-D submission. While the vast
majority of the information in it is correct, It needs to be
updated. The author has just been too busy to do the update.
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
This web page provides the things that are checked by the IDnits tool
which is used as part of the online submission checking.
I have personally prepared an I-D and checked it with the IDnits
running on tools.ietf.org an then had it rejected by the online
submission tool. I have asked the Secretariat to work with Henrik to
figure out what is wrong. I suspect others have been caught in the
same situation. Perhaps that was resolved in the week while I was
away. I'll be checking after I clear my email backlog. The answer
might be in it...
There is no intention that xml2rfc be the only way to produce an I-D
that is acceptable to the online submission tool. xml2rfc seems to
have a higher success rate, and we are working to improve the online
submission tool so that all of the various tools have high success rates.
Russ
At 06:01 PM 6/29/2009, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The original thread is about Internet Draft submission, not RFC
publication format. The two topics are completely disjoint in the
IETF procedures.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf