Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf anddatatracker.ietf / rfc-editor

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-03-28 11:39 t.petch said the following:
...
> From: "Henrik Levkowetz"<[e-mail]>
...
>> On 2011-03-27 03:00 Mathieu Goessens said the following:
...
>>> 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)
>>
>> However, this I don't understand.  Drafts are never edited after being
>> submitted, so the explanation for how there could be 2 different copies
>> of the RFC doesn't apply here.  Furthermore, for the drafts above, I
>> don't see links to two conflicting copies -- in which way do you mean
>> that the drafts "are also wrong"?
>>
>
> Perhaps an XML to RFC issue:-)
>
> Up to -06 (Nov 2006), each packet format was a separate numbered figure.
>
>> From -07, the one line formats at the start of the document were no longer
> given the caption 'Figure nn'  but still contributed to the running count of
> figure numbers, so the first numbered figure was Figure 7.  This persisted
> until -13 after which the RFC Editor put things 'right' in the RFC as published.

Ah, ok.  That means there's nothing in this part which I need to fix on the
tools servers.  Which is fine by me :-)


Best,

	Henrik