ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf anddatatracker.ietf / rfc-editor

2011-03-28 11:29:46


On 2011-03-28 11:39 t.petch said the following:
...
From: "Henrik Levkowetz"<henrik(_at_)levkowetz(_dot_)com>
...
On 2011-03-27 03:00 Mathieu Goessens said the following:
...
The drafts are also wrong, both in txt, html and pdf:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
(I did not check the older versions)

However, this I don't understand.  Drafts are never edited after being
submitted, so the explanation for how there could be 2 different copies
of the RFC doesn't apply here.  Furthermore, for the drafts above, I
don't see links to two conflicting copies -- in which way do you mean
that the drafts "are also wrong"?


Perhaps an XML to RFC issue:-)

Up to -06 (Nov 2006), each packet format was a separate numbered figure.

From -07, the one line formats at the start of the document were no longer
given the caption 'Figure nn'  but still contributed to the running count of
figure numbers, so the first numbered figure was Figure 7.  This persisted
until -13 after which the RFC Editor put things 'right' in the RFC as published.

Ah, ok.  That means there's nothing in this part which I need to fix on the
tools servers.  Which is fine by me :-)


Best,

        Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf