Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
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!
Please stop before you embarrass yourself further. The original report
was very clear:
"As of Feb 9th, the IESG posted a second status boilerplate."
Indeed, the new Feb 9th status section itself is clearly written with the
word "second". (I've also sent you the *entire* section as written.)
"But the tool doesn't yet recognize it...."
*PROVEN*, as of yesterday, and you admit farther down this message that
some (many/most) servers weren't running the needed updated software.
Given the secretariat message doesn't identify the tool or the version,
you had *all* the information that was sent me by the secretariat.
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.
No, it wasn't. At least, not on the server the secretariat was using,
nor on the server that I accessed a day later. Two strikes.
AFAICT, it's still not updated!
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
At this very moment:
Version: 2.12.00
Ooh, that's not good. The .01 version is only available on some of the
tools servers, not all. Fixed.
Author:
Note the author is missing here, too.
Funny. I see my name quite clearly on the web page there.
Still missing. Apparently, somebody thought that field should be
displayed with javascript, which no security-minded person runs.
Also, the verbose output doesn't count line lengths correctly. Apparently,
it is including the non-printing FF in the count. Not good.
Same problem with "idnits 2.12.01"
<sarcasm>
Also, this was somewhat amusing:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. 'RFC 3232') (Obsoleted by
RFC 3232)
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 content
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.
</sarcasm>
And yet, you don't seem to be able to read the entry provided before your
very eyes. That's it. Try it in your own testbed. Or wait for the
internet-draft to be posted, and test it then.
It would be obvious to you if you'd looked at the idnits report of your own
submission that idnits *had* been installed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/display_idnit.cgi?submission_id=21622
That is a URL you have apparently made up to access your tool. Of course
it works as you desire, and accesses the appropriate tool version (today).
Prior to your message, there was never any indication such a URL exists.
The URL provided by the secretariat in an email on Feb 25th was:
I-D Submission Tool URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/status.cgi?submission_id=21622
At this moment in time today, that still doesn't work:
<blockquote>
Your request was not processed due to the following error(s):
Error - Draft is not in an appropriate status for the requested page
</blockquote>
I have no idea what that means....
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf