[Detnet-dp-dt] Fwd: RE: Nits and XML2RFC - that might apply to our draft.

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 05 September 2017 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1920A13271E for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ouxSvzFfS7v for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E0E13243E for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (c213-89-111-155.bredband.comhem.se []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DECC4180155A for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:14:29 +0200 (CEST)
References: <061901d3262e$ade196b0$09a4c410$@olddog.co.uk>
To: "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <061901d3262e$ade196b0$09a4c410$@olddog.co.uk>
Message-ID: <b22e4b75-70f3-6ac4-7986-a2610f206d6a@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:14:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <061901d3262e$ade196b0$09a4c410$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/Pn9mn09bKA6aWoVuMsWVnzCVLOk>
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] Fwd: RE: Nits and XML2RFC - that might apply to our draft.
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DetNet WG Data Plane Design Team <detnet-dp-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet-dp-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:14:34 -0000


I think this is part of the explanation to the nits we received on
out draft. I have not checked, but it seems reasonable.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Nits and XML2RFC
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:06:42 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
To: 'Christian Huitema' <huitema@huitema.net>et>, ietf@ietf.org


The "bug" is that xml2rfc now inserts 
"https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/" and 
"https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" whereas idnits checks for 
"http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/" and 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema
> Sent: 04 September 2017 20:53
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Nits and XML2RFC
> On 9/4/2017 12:42 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > I just formatted a draft using xml2rfc and the online tool,
> > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/. Then I submitted the result for
> > publication. And it was refused because the submission checking tool
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ found 4 errors in the copyright and
> > IPR boilerplate. This is weird, because my draft used the xml2rfc option
> > ipr="trust200902". But it seems that the xml2rfc tool and the submission
> > checking tool disagree. I get an interesting message, complaining about
> > errors such as this one: ....
> > As far as I can tell, the only difference between one text and the other
> > are the position of the line breaks. Of course, the line breaks are
> > chosen by the editing tool, and I have no control.
> >
> > Any suggestion on how to fix my draft?
> >
> OK, I managed to fix the submission. My mistake was to submit both a
> text document and an XML document. Since the xml2rfc editor used by the
> submission tool produces a slightly different format than the xml2rfc
> online tool, this generated nits. Probably the results of some recent
> change. Anyhow, I fixed the submission by submitting only the XML
> document. That appeared to be working.
> --
> Christian Huitema


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64