On 2007-11-25, at 23:51, ext Paul Hoffman wrote:
They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the
XML by comparing it to what the IESG approved.
I agree with Paul. The IESG approves the text version of a draft, so
the text version is definitive.
Making the XML available
W.r.t.
Ensuring that the resulting text of the submitted XML source match
identically the approved ID does not seem correct.
It does to many people who responded on this thread.
Let me inform you all, then when we did the experiment a few years
back, I was monitoring/steering that
Phillip,
Looks to me as if the cut off is start of business for the RFC Editor.
That makes sense to me, no matter how much you try to change the cut
off you can't make it any later than the point where the editor needs
to start work.
No, the RFC Editor does not edit drafts after the cutoff,
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-03.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Summary: This draft
At 9:46 AM -0500 11/27/07, Derek Atkins wrote:
The problem is that it's the TXT that's approved, not the XML..
This whole thread is about making sure that the XML received by
the RFC Editor matches the Text that was approved by the IESG.
Starting with what was approved necessarily means ignoring
Greetings All,
The RFC Editor does retrieve ALL approved IDs and compare our edited
text with the originally approved ID, as posted in the internet-
drafts repository.
Often times, authors send us the XML file, and let us know that they
have updated the file to reflect the requested RFC
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.
agreed. at the risk of stating the
Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:58 PM +0200 11/25/07, Jari Arkko wrote:
Paul,
They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the XML
by comparing it to what the IESG approved.
Yes, and they do compare to what IESG approved. Substantial changes are
brought to
Marshall,
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.
agreed. at the risk of
Derek Atkins wrote:
The problem is that it's the TXT that's approved, not the XML..
This whole thread is about making sure that the XML received by
the RFC Editor matches the Text that was approved by the IESG.
Starting with what was approved necessarily means ignoring the
XML and starting
On 27-Nov-2007, at 12:16, Marshall Rose wrote:
agreed. at the risk of stating the obvious: the problem is identical
to the one where the authors submit nroff source to the rfc-editor.
it's always a good idea to run the toolchain, and then diff the text
against the I-D approved by the IESG. if
Marshall,
ok, so the current process is adequate, we just need to be a little
more careful in following it, right?
Mainly yes, but I'm sure processes could be improved, too.
The reason why I sent my initial e-mail was to warn authors. And to ask
them to check to make sure they're sending the
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing
renovations,
and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in
early September.
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,
but, when asked, told me that the night time
On 11/27/07 at 9:47 PM +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote:
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are
undergoing renovations,
and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had
reserved in early September.
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away...
At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0200,
Yaakov Stein wrote:
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are
undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out
of the room that I had reserved in early September.
That's uh, not good.
This actually raises another issue
As someone else who made reservations in early September and was told
today that they are canceling my reservation, I would be very interested
to know how many people have been affected by this last minute change.
Although I am perhaps more comfortable than Yaakov with walking outdoors
in
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat
booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not
kicking out other guests instead of us?
Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a
++;
On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are
undergoing renovations,
and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had
reserved in early September.
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat
booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not
kicking out other guests instead of us?
Actually, I'm interested in a more basic
Preliminary information is that there will shuttle service between the
Renaissance, Marriott and Westin. Extent of impact on rooms about 50.
I am told we are the only guests at the Westin. I will report back with
additional info.
Ray
IAD
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 11/27/07 at 9:47 PM +0200,
Fair enough, and I realize that I am not privy to how the
negotiations go and how much of a discount one gets. I don't want to
know about how the contracts negotiation happens but I do of course
want to have a productive IETF meeting with as few late surprises as
possible.
On Nov 27,
+1
support.
if so, shuttle should be provided.
- Original Message -
From: Yaakov Stein
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 AM
Subject: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,
The ICANN meeting a couple of years ago was at the Bayshore, and I
stayed at the Renaissance because the Bayshore was full. When we were
there, the weather was unseasonably severe, with temperatures plunging
below 0 C and snow blown
I will be certainly be writing letters to the Bayshore and their parent
company to express my displeasure, and I hope that the IETF will
remember this week's events the next time it considers holding a meeting
at a Starwood Hotel.
and while we are at it...
We will need cloak room service
Cullen Jennings wrote:
We been at several
hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was
ever without problems.
Humans do not process negatives all that well -- and that's a cognitive issue,
not just emotional -- particularly when doubled.
Besides, it's
Fred Baker wrote:
For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells us that
there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as well.
Since a purpose of the long-term contract was stability, this is proving to be
a rather counter-productive pattern.
As for construction noise,
agreed. at the risk of stating the obvious: the problem is identical
to the one where the authors submit nroff source to the rfc-editor.
it's always a good idea to run the toolchain, and then diff the text
against the I-D approved by the IESG. if there's a difference, the
relevant ADs and
Dear Colleagues-
As you finalize your plans to attend IETF 70 in Vancouver next week, we
wanted to make you aware of the opportunity for your organization to host
IETF 74 in March 2009.
The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific location
still to be determined. Since the
Yaakov,
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the IETF was
already providing a shuttle service as the Renaissance was the
designated overflow hotel.
Stuart Goldman
Alcatel-Lucent
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 602 493 8438
P please save a tree by not printing this e-mail.
Well, I don't think that shuttle bus is an enough compromise. It is not
flexible in scheduling and does not work late night.
YAO wrote:
+1
support.
if so, shuttle should be provided.
- Original Message -
*From:* Yaakov Stein mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:*
Yangwoo Ko wrote:
Well, I don't think that shuttle bus is an enough compromise. It is not
flexible in scheduling and does not work late night.
It occurs to me that a competent hotel normally comps the cost of the
alternate room, if you arrive with a reservation and they fail to satisfy
Ned Freed wrote:
...
Another potential problem is that document generation from XML source may
involve more than just running xml2rfc. Some documents are built up from
multiple files in complex ways that cannot easily be duplicated by the I-D
manager.
...
That's true. But at some point of
32 matches
Mail list logo
