On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Stefan Santesson ste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
One minor question.
How do you use xml2rfc to edit a document when you don't have that document
in xml format?
I've had luck with converting using xml2rfc-xxe
(http://xml2rfc-xxe.googlecode.com/); you select the
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
Please advise if there are other questions.
Section 6 requires that the text be included on the first page. With
the 6.c.iii workaround, and the heretofore-standard page lengths, and
the 1id-guidelines-required text,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
- where should the escape clause appear in an I-D (in Status of
this Memo, or in Copyright Notice)?
Copyright Notice
I believe this change from historic practice
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Dean Anderson d...@av8.com wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/765/
reports 'the page you were looking for couldn't be found'
This is a bug in the web page; it should report This IPR disclosure
was removed at the request of the submitter.. The IPR index
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 16th
December
appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in
effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable.
This is not
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
... the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Campbell ben at estacado dot net wrote:
--Don't forget the new boilerplate, depending on the timing of publication
I submitted a draft earlier today and (reluctantly) had to settle for the
old boilerplate, because:
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
However, if people were filing disclosures that would not be useful
(slanderous statements, duplicate-by-accident filings, stuff that
turns out to be false and which the submitter wants redacted), we
thought that having the discretionary
On 2/20/08, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
have a problem?
John,
Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
response to me. (Unless the expected answer is A lot)
During a transition like this,
On 11/7/07, Bernard Aboba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a different take on what happened:
...
There are all sorts of takes on what happened. What I was told at the
time was that the CARP developers picked protocol 112 specifically to
interfere with VRRP, to get back at the IETF for not
For example, see:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2873
That message appears to be based completely on conjecture - for
example, their assertion based on looking at the list of assigned
numbers ignores the fact that all of the numbers they based their
supposition on were assigned before the rules were
On 10/27/07, Andrew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are all excellent points, but looking over this draft it is not
obvious that there is a documented patent claim. I have to get to
the boilerplate at the end, follow a link and do a bit of searching.
Perhaps the IETF ought to consider a
On 10/26/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this an official FSF campaign?
Yes, http://www.fsf.org/news/oppose-tls-authz-standard.html
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
i am under impression that may include sys/socket.h clause can
lead to portability issues in applications - some application writers
will include netinet/in.h only and it will compile fine on some
platforms, and not on some other platforms.
Header pollution definitely
A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the
DHCP server(s) this time. We have a problem and we're working on it
is not all that helpful.
I wasn't directly involved in debugging this, but this is what I gathered
from later discussions: The bottom line seemed to be a
On 4/5/07, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... xml2rfc ends up with
symbolic references that look like
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] (one of the less unattractive ones)
or, potentially,
[I-D.draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434-bis]. Those
things cause formatting problems, violate
On 2/27/07, McDonald, Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - from the IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group, see the
Job Monitoring MIB (RFC 2707) which defined the textual
convention 'JmNaturalLanguageTagTC'
Ah, silly me, I forgot that I hadn't written the part that populates
the database with TCs yet.
On 2/10/07, McDonald, Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to max length of 60, the public MIBs that
I'm aware of often use 63 octets
Do you have any pointers? I searched my MIB object database for
objects named *Language* or with DESCRIPTIONS with Language
inside, and only got the
On 2/24/07, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's a good split between RFC 3967 and this document.
RFC 3967 will cover informational documents; this document will cover
standards track.
I have to admit that when I was reading this document I was confused
by section 4; I thought
On 2/23/07, Adrian Farrel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reference to RFC3986 includes ..., Was Internet-Draft It is
unusual to include reference to the I-D that has subsequently become an RFC.
Probably best just to leave this text out.
Ditto RFC3305, RFC3414, and RFC3415.
Sorry, this one
On 1/23/07, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question on section 3 of http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
The short answer is that it was copied directly out of RFC 3978 (plus
the modifications in RFC 4748). When I was updating 1id-guidelines, I
erred on the side of
On 1/24/07, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my
submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official
feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official
word.
When this happens, it's best to contact the
John,
Sorry to pick out a nugget from the middle of a very long message, but
On 12/30/06, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... What we don't need is
more rigid rules that either try to anticipate every
circumstance ...
This is something that I feel very strongly about. We write
Mike,
Check out http://tools.ietf.org/wg/wgname and see if that gives
you the view you're looking for.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 10/16/06, Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When clicking on
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html
one gets the event calendar that was posted a while ago.
This may be an artifact of your system caching a previous result, as
that document is solely a redirect, and has no content.
On 9/27/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. It does not specify any syntactic detail for the domain suffix
field of the DHCP option. Is it a dotted ascii string? Some other
encoding?
While I was confused too as to what this option is intended to be used
for, I think that
The
On 9/18/06, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not done the work to review velocity from -00 to RFC, but perhaps
Bill Fenner has.
I haven't; I've been concentrating on the IESG part of the document lifecycle.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
On 9/4/06, todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its time to talk about term limits for NOMCOM appointments. Two or maybe
three terms at most are enough.
Todd,
Given that there are no standing IESG appointees that have served
for three terms, what exactly would making such a rule change?
A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally
crazy.
I'm afraid I agree. I see this in our other kinds of process
specifications too -- we write rules for which you need to exercise
sensible judgement, and then fret about what happens when someone uses
bad judgement and try to
Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be
very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability.
I think that RFCs should be
My recent experiences with ftp.ietf.org:
EPSV doesn't work - it gives a port which it then isn't listening on
(or, more likely since we get no response at all, a firewall blocks
connections to):
ftp ls
--- EPSV
229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||42065|)
ftp: connect for data channel:
Just for completeness, I configured 6to4 to get IPv6 working.
Both EPSV and EPRT work with IPv6.
ftp ls
--- EPSV
229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||10283|)
--- LIST
150 Here comes the directory listing.
drwxrwxr-x 265 6060 48 8192 May 05 15:12
concluded-wg-ietf-mail-archive
I've been looking at PDF/A. Ghostscript 8.55 (not yet released)
supports PDF/A-1b output, and I understand that Adobe Distiller does
too, both as an output form and as a preflight check for conformance.
I'm inclined to suggest that the document include something like this:
PDF files to be
On 6/20/06, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[jck:]
... I like a feature of those system
that you didn't mention (the ability to insert comments whose
appearance in the output can easily turned on and off. cref
and some processing options comes close, but isn't quite the
same).
IMO this
On 6/20/06, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what needs to be done to make xml2rfc better, but I sure wish the
RFC Editor would spend whatever time it takes with the folks who work on
xml2rfc to accomplish this.
Note that the next release will contain several features/changes
On 6/20/06, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Alice] tells me that she
entered several issues into the xml2rfc tracker, but she does not think
anyone is looking at it any more.
This is parly my fault - I picked the wrong technology for the tracker
and it doesn't notify interested parties
On the other hand, here's a document that we've been working on for a
while, always producing text and ps/pdf due to the inclusion of
graphical state machines:
-rw-r--r-- 1 fenner fenner 290444 Jun 9 14:34 pimspec.pdf
-rw-r--r-- 1 fenner fenner 340594 Jun 14 14:32 pimspec.txt
Having a more organized and documented source management
mechanism in place would help.
While I agree with your and Stephane's points, I think that's
a seperate discussion to have.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
There is a reason it did not result in change... there were cogent
arguments against all proposals that were made.
I thought that some of the arguments were just arguments against
change, and some of the arguments did argue for a change in the
experiment but not that the experiment was bad per
(3) Given how popular xml2rfc is I think it makes sense to at least look at
how it would best be used to produce PDF documents containing equations and
block diagrams.
I did this the N-2nd (or maybe 3rd) time we had
this discussion and have refined it since. See, e.g.,
On 5/31/06, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
There isn't any documented appeals mechanism
for IAB decisions. Should there be?
Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026.
Fred,
Do you read that as being able to say the IAB
On 5/24/06, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case anyone is unsure, the actual policy being followed by
the RFC Editor will be found at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist
Bob,
How does this policy relate to the one found at:
I wrote a poor-man's archive to rss some time ago for mhonarc. I
never finished it because it wasn't clear it was what you really want
(e.g., how do you pick what messages appear in the feed, etc.) but if
someone wants to pick it up it'd be reasonably easy to change it to
output atom and start
I also noticed that IPv6 disappeared from the network and reported it to the
NOC. I think they figured out the problem at least in one of the APs or
whatever it was. I've requested to know the reason but got no information at
the time being.
Jordi,
At the heart of this problem was that we
Mmm... well, my laptop (Mac Powerbook) fell off the b/g network
several times, mostly during plenary sessions, but the problems were
brief, and I usually had no trouble getting back on.
Ken,
I experienced this too, several times. Our best guess was that it
had to do with the older IOS
Hi Geoff,
Brian reminded me of your Last Call comment, which I saw and then
overlooked. I think I meant to say No experimental addresses are
assigned, where you took exception to saying ...defined.
Do you find the following text sensible?
3.4.1. IPv6 Unicast Addresses
[RFC2928]
Juergen,
I assumed, from reading in traceRouteHopsHopIndex about the behavior
when a path changes, that the only safe thing for a manager to do is
to read the hops from the table and render them to the user in order
of increasing traceRouteHopsHopIndex but without necessarily showing
the
On 2/22/06, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed during AUTH48 that the RFC Editor Acknowledgment
has been revised. Is there any intention of updating xml2rfc
to reflect this?
Yes.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Can we have a Proposed Standard
without the IETF having change control?
No. RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, These
notices may not be used with any standards-track document.
Bill
On 1/11/06, Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the
RFC-Editor regarding the xml2rfc tool. If we had, we would have forwarded it
to the xml2rfc list.
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked
On 1/10/06, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:45 AM -0500 1/10/06, Brian Rosen wrote:
Do you have any idea how painful it is to build any kind of product that has
good management simply because there is no library of MIBs, with references
to documents? There isn't even a LIST of IETF
On 1/11/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing that
conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc.
I don't think that converting to xml is the same class
On 1/5/06, Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say that a Unicode code point can be represented by %xABCD but that is not
spelt out in ABNF [RFC4234].
ABNF uses non-negative integers to represent characters - note that it
explicitly doesn't specify a range (2nd sentence of section 2.3). RFC
On 12/16/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I tried to find out what lemonade stands for, back
to an obscure IETF 55 PDF on an obscure lemonade WG page,
and finally came to the conclusion that it's just a name and
no acronym... I hope that's correct ;-)
Sorry, that's my
On 11/29/05, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However the update behavior if you add agility is more complicated.
I think this is the key to the objections, and deserves a lot of consideration.
Adding agility would presumably require either
a) Requiring that all consumers of DHCID records
On 11/24/05, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we adopt some new format, though, I think we
really need the ability to generate diffs of different versions of the
same document.
The solution that comes to mind for diffs is to format the old version
(to text), format the new
On 11/23/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be specific if you can make up an example XML I-D with an embedded
SVG diagram, and tell me which tool I can use to manipulate the diagram
inside the XML I-D, I'll have a much bigger basis (1 example rather than
zero) on
On 11/16/05, Ted Faber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Bill was talking about making his editing plug-in display
changes to the document as change bars or whatnot.
Right, whatnot. In actual fact, what I have been thinking of was a
change-acceptance function for copy editing (show old, show
On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not mind swapping from to an XML package
provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments,
highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit time spell and edit time
grammer checking, and was a simple to install and maintain
on XP.
Is
On 11/14/05, Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable editor?
And does one exist that's free?
Still a work in progress, but see
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ . Outline mode is high
on my todo list (I have one working that only does
On 11/10/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put up a screen in the hallway with continuous display of the ad-hoc mode
MACs detected at any time.
Lets people check their own MACs in real time.
If people don't know how to turn off ad-hoc mode, will they know how
to check their
On 10/19/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... to see a big red blinking WAIT
for each normative reference to an informational RfC.
Not if the RFC 3967 procedure is followed (Clarifying when Standards
Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level.)
Bill
On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We will require all ADs that are the ADs for Bob to change their name
formally to Bruce.
Eric,
That's the best idea I've heard yet.
Eric
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 8/25/05, Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
Recent versions of mailman set nodupes by default. List participants
can change it if they know about it, but they might have no idea of how
this setting works and how it can be used to exclude them from
participation.
The workaround is to
Sorry to follow up to my own message; I discovered when setting up
rtg.ietf.org's mailman setup that putting
DEFAULT_NEW_MEMBER_OPTIONS = 0
in mm_cfg.py will turn off the nodupes option for new lists. It'll
still be on by default for existing lists, and existing subscriptions.
Bill
JFC,
In March, 1995, when RFC 1766 was published, the BCP track did not exist.
The Standards Track was being used for things that were not protocols
and did not fit well into the 3-stage process. Since BCPs are subject to
the same consensus judging and scrutiny as standards-track documents,
On 8/7/05, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there should be requirement that before having going to Last Call
there should at least be 2 separate implementations when a document is
created by a working group?
The Routing Area is debating having this rule. Right now, the rules
laid
I agree completely; I've had trouble with evening sessions for a
couple of years now, and find this schedule MUCH easier to manage.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Why would you want to have a calender without timezones??
Mostly for clients with bad user interfaces - e.g., old Apple iCal
which didn't let you set the display time zone differently from
the system time zone, or web-based calendar servers that don't allow
the visitor to set the display time
P.S. - being curious:
A quick analysis of http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html, counting terms
by number of IETF meetings since that's how they're represented there,
results in the following answers for the IESG. The IAB history page
isn't as easy to analyze in the same way but someone certainly
Just for fun, you could try http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/ietf-63.ics ;
this is a completely independent implementation of the same mapping so
may have a completely different failure mode ;-)
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
One important (IMHO) issue is that Bill's ics does not use timezone info
for the times.
This was a conscious decision. I think the obvious answer is to have
two versions, one with timezone and one without.
Couple of other points:
- Some lines were longer than 72 characters
Erk, I forgot
It reads in to Thunderbird OK, but the result is less pretty than
Eliot's effort. Eliot's version appears to lay out the multiple events
in a partcular timeslot evenly across the available space, whereas
Bill's results in different sized blocks and in some cases some of the
events appear to
hopefully the final result will be able to express the more complex
forms of wedgitude such as your check was sent two years ago via IESG
express under tracking number and is currently being held at our
hub until it can be stapled to another check from a different working
group
So, e.g.,
On 7/19/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It also breaks the RFC Editor's REF state into two seperate
states - REF-INT, where all of the REF documents are also in
the queue, and REF-EXT, where one or more is not. Only
REF-EXT is a blocking state.
REF-INT could point to
Bruce Lilly writes:
It would be nice to have something analogous to the I-D tracker
for the RFC-Editor process, recording process state transitions
and their dates.
The parking area isn't really meant to be an analysis of the RFC Editor's
queue, just a statement about what the IETF has approved.
Yes. And what's the idea ?
It's the IETF's statement about having approved the documents, as opposed
to the RFC Editor's statement about having the documents in the queue.
So far I took e.g. draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt,
removed draft- and -00.txt resulting in a fragment id.
It should be working now. (The danger of running on live data - when
it changes in unanticipated ways, the page breaks!)
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Is this (239-element) table sorted? I might suggest sorted by ID name
within WG, but any sort would be a good thing to provide.
It's sorted by document approval date. I'll point that out in the
header and look into making other optional sorts available.
Bill
On 6/9/05, Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conversely, if the IESG does regard the matter as important, it could:
1. direct the IETF Secretariat to enforce the rule
Bruce,
ID-Checklist is only for I-Ds that are submitted to the IESG for
publication. It's not the cost of checking that
On 6/9/05, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not illogical - if your source file says
rfc ipr='full3667'... you get exactly what you asked for, i.e. the
obsolete boilerplate. The id-nits tool will warn you - it is
well worth running that before submitting *any* I-D, whether
On 6/8/05, wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
as the very first paragraph.. .this was generated via the XML tool..
So, I guess the automated tool will no longer accept this statement
with a reference to RFC 36668 it has to be
My historical data on document progress in the I-D tracker, collected
since the beginning of 2003, is available at
https://rtg.ietf.org/phpmyadmin username ietf password ietf; pick
database trackerdata and table dochistory. (Ignore the permission
denied error; go straight for the table list on
On 5/17/05, Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting, but the key could be clarified
I've tried to clarify the key, and have added a red diamond for
nonexistent I-D (which was previously confusingly represented as an
individual expired document).
Bill
On 5/17/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice. I know that I need glasses, but maybe you could arrange
for bigger figures with a bigger font size ?
Frank,
I used PDF because most PDF viewers allow zooming and panning. I've
left graphviz to decide on the layout itself, since for
Based on the positive feedback from my RFC-Editor graph, I've updated
some work that I started some time ago - a set of graphs, two per
working group. These graphs show inter-document dependencies(*) of
all I-Ds that are working group documents, and one hop forwards and
back - for example, if a
On 5/11/05, Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, if there is the equivalent of the I-D tracker for the RFC
Editor Queue (where correspondence and major state transitions for a
document are captured and can be seen later), I am not sure where to
find it. The RFC editor queue is a
Bill et al,
You may be interested in
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf for a visualization that
I've been fine-tuning for a couple of years; it's auto-generated
daily.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 5/11/05, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may be interested in
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf for a visualization that
I've been fine-tuning for a couple of years; it's auto-generated
daily.
wow. neat!
what is the difference between the green and red
On 5/9/05, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More direct communication with
individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have
comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce
the number of myths about IESG/AD operations.
Indeed. Of course, the idea
On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
Dave,
From my point of
On Apr 8, 2005 5:27 AM, Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com wrote:
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
I picked neither since I use both and don't have a
On Apr 8, 2005 6:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the
draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal
to the file
If you use rfc docName=draft-fenner-xml-aint-so-bad-01, and run
the tool
On Apr 8, 2005 6:40 AM, Elwyn davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG
Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of
boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc.
I've written a plugin
On Apr 6, 2005 5:38 AM, Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive.
Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like:
[mouse,icon,click,type a bit,mouse,...]
I've found that I can mostly avoid the mouse using XMLmind's
On Apr 6, 2005 7:10 AM, Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about
25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from
nroff than from XML,
To be fair, poor
The spelling error comments above are attributed to The IESG.
The IESG authored the Last Call message to which the spelling error
comments were a reply. Ned quoted Bruce's attribution with no
attribution (but it was indented with a prefix.)
Bill
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:06:36 -0500, Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
It's intended to replace http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt .
Sect. 2 mentions six months for expiration,
The draft version currently has a link to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html which has a link to the
formatting page and much more. I'm happy to add more information, and
I think Bruce's macros are a good addition to the set of available
tools too.
Bill
Hi,
I'm working on an update for 1id-guidelines.txt so that it
will be ready to reflect the new IPR RFCs (RFC 3907 and 3908)
when they are published. It's gone through one round of
discussion in the IESG; now I'm looking for more complete
review.
Pieces that could use extra review:
-
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
