Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor
Mathieu Goessens <mathieu.goessens@irisa.fr> Sun, 27 March 2011 00:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mathieu.goessens@irisa.fr>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79D33A680D; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cb1ElGgoNl34; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16173A684E; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,249,1299452400"; d="scan'208";a="91287731"
Received: from unknown (HELO [78.251.245.10]) ([78.251.245.10]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 27 Mar 2011 03:00:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4D8E8C41.5090104@irisa.fr>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:00:49 +0200
From: Mathieu Goessens <mathieu.goessens@irisa.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101030 Icedove/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <4D8CCFBC.9030909@irisa.fr> <3B1740F1-6CFB-4D93-BE63-C34CD8DFDA70@vpnc.org> <4D8CFBEB.3010304@irisa.fr> <01db01cbeb2e$1311d5b0$39358110$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <01db01cbeb2e$1311d5b0$39358110$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, 'Paul Hoffman' <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:59:19 -0000
Thanks to the one who corrected it. The html are pdf version are also wrong: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944 http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4944 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) Any information about the problem ? It is limited to this RFC or can it appears in some others ? On 25/03/2011 21:48, Adrian Farrel wrote: > [Copying the RFC Editor to let them also check their records] > > Note that the IANA registry is consistent with > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt > > Adrian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Mathieu Goessens >> Sent: 25 March 2011 21:33 >> To: Paul Hoffman >> Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and >> datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor >> >> On 25/03/2011 20:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Mathieu Goessens wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> The RFC4944 looks to be different in the version distributed by >>>> > tools.ietf.org > >> and datatracker.ietf.org / rfc-editor.org. >> >>>> The figure 2 looks truncated on the tools.ietf.org version: >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt >>>> >>>> Do you know what is the problem ? Document generation problem ? Where it >>>> >> should be reported ? >> >>>> >>> These two documents were clearly derived from very different sources: the >>> >> page breaks are also quite different. >> >>> How on earth did that happen >>> >> I am not that sure: the page break is different precisely starting from >> this figure. >> >> I was more thinking about a different version of configuration of the >> xml2rfc software. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Mathieu Goessens >> IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France >> Tel: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 00, Fax: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 71 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > -- Mathieu Goessens IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France Tel: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 00, Fax: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 71
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… Paul Hoffman
- [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as distribu… Mathieu Goessens
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… Mathieu Goessens
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… Mathieu Goessens
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as dist… RFC Editor