Re: [6lowpan] Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 25 March 2011 19:11 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 D7DCF3A6833; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 H+Ag5hxG7YxF; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4870:a30c:41::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1D03A682D; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.2.202] ([212.47.23.197]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2PJCW0c066232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:12:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D8CCFBC.9030909@irisa.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:12:31 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B1740F1-6CFB-4D93-BE63-C34CD8DFDA70@vpnc.org>
References: <4D8CCFBC.9030909@irisa.fr>
To: Mathieu Goessens <mathieu.goessens@irisa.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:54:07 -0700
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.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: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:11:03 -0000
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? --Paul Hoffman
- 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