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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
