IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 24 October 2014 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2FE1A8840 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EqHFSPjXaZRq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3AC1A1B74 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.160] ([84.187.32.111]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lm34j-1YGL0G0I9B-00ZhLk; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:27:49 +0200
Message-ID: <5449F158.4010907@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:27:36 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
References: <20141015183752.37123181C73@rfc-editor.org> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E127CF275517@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <306B15D1-D5F5-46B8-8473-599B3B4667EE@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <306B15D1-D5F5-46B8-8473-599B3B4667EE@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:7MCovNYG4Et0y5hGJqfyRAP70kIkacEQ4B0XarIt1hYNMYhlXIy m1iPiqYMMnj49u7IN3evhD+5JSAzlYNhe/Bw81yMDGyAaO4fLWgxseVGEykDyekaYFZ2J6y safOFeQLHQmPBf++s47Aj96lOjIwAqP9gd6IxfarLajUlmRzyE31N4yjOej66Of7u+C38NC f/8xbJRsx+8tP1nPjmfww==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/-LdUvgzgu90OiIeJx5I3Jdh0MPU
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "presnick@qti.qualcomm.com" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, RSE <rse@rfc-editor.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "barryleiba@computer.org" <barryleiba@computer.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:28:04 -0000

On 2014-10-16 01:16, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2014, at 01:06, Manger, James <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>
>> P.S. Curiously, the "Diff2" format on tools.ietf.org [https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7386] shows the indentation as being correct in rfc7386.txt and draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07. Probably a tools glitch.
>
> This looks like the canonical tab-width confusion.
> The correct text had a tab-width of 8, but the RFC text was converted to spaces applying a tab-width of 4.
>
> Yep, the copy of rfc7386.xml I have has been tabified, while draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07.xml is clean.
>
> NEVER, EVER, tabify documents.
> THROW OUT ALL TOOLS THAT DO THIS.
> (Sorry for shouting, but this TAB nonsense has cost too much time in my life already.)
> ...

For the record, I see at least two RFCs in AUTH48 with HTAB characters: 
RFC 7390 and 7391 (reminder: there's an Atom feed with validation 
results: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/xml2rfc/rfcdiags.atom>).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email