Revising I-Ds became painful
Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Wed, 20 April 2011 17:18 UTC
Return-Path: <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47CBE06C9 for <ietf@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.011, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NhoXP8z-Z5UD for <ietf@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.208]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DFEA7E06B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.91.68] by nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2011 17:18:46 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.38] by tm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2011 17:18:46 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1038.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2011 17:18:46 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 697078.32080.bm@omp1038.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 54562 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Apr 2011 17:18:46 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1303319926; bh=l91q3AYbk0GGBEufYPIZuQ5nRRLqGORjNUDX/z78I5Y=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IFbKWVr/yMcEn8BergmUpaFDjEbD9TG44SX1trit8QR4pe4UpMFUYVqgpI4jCojPKL/iJjQGBEOj3ss2c6rTIPv01Jo30juJynBj21BoHAhsWWpqev7i/3VNa1TXC+JJauYQJe1cukjBg3lveNg82VA6njj6m/3FDnyjB2XZiG8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RwWsi/Ci/Ffh6MQ7dqd9gKLrbfyfhp1563fealZz+UOmEOMzliQoZ4hxnRKmRF/7iRT8LYVxNVvAIbus7cjGNvhZB0frRc7eFU2pN1Tt57pm1ENwc4cZZLoqUViegn/Nz8r3bFedA0xKeDjUzvNNOuMMSswPTvU6EAT+DIsuwPo=;
Message-ID: <3035.52653.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: Y8PVRjsVM1lbF2IVhzTdEOLW_mssfOEdFUOqI43wrs3Rn.U LuEVP85PQxOlqkVLWY7LgJSuHWP78bmap4UdladKfhMRiL6.sI70afQgs0tY FX3UhjT8R1DEWlil.hLLdoJm6ghkTvGQTnQX0qYO_WyEt4ck_8POE4EkOHy4 rhwfdWEurLj1VdUEE_ECsn3ftMZXLBSRHOU7PYmcvH_4KFqLtug2l0hKvupD Ok69I5RF7bAoyLxh7vnAAZGNbPRpBtZDr2TnGH06KjirO.N8Yq84UrkobmQG 4t891HuuLEC2qBE0HXPBUFTGMvBLvvDRFNc1dxXoTXxdqwbU3Sb883TcfJJx yuDtvulUNEqPDo8xzi_zBoyYnb3.KpoPCj19_fls63lAtVlGnjYAPaMTO.fI 30ucP7N7XHAVFAA--
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:18:45 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:18:45 -0700
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Subject: Revising I-Ds became painful
To: ietf@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:18:50 -0000
Hi, It seems like I-D submission for a revised draft (after expiration) encounters so many new hurdles: 1. Version number. Submission page complains about the version number even though it is correct. This seems to be because the system keeps the expiration message in html format as the new version to be submitted. Is there a way to get around this? 2. RFC XML has changed. It seem like xml.resource.org has a new xml compiler. I had a lot of trouble in compiling my existing xml files. I am OK with improving RFC XML but why not keep upward compatibility? Regards, Behcet
- Revising I-Ds became painful Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Revising I-Ds became painful Glen Zorn
- Re: Revising I-Ds became painful Tony Hansen
- Re: Revising I-Ds became painful Brian E Carpenter