[rfc-i] RFCXMLv3: <referencegroup vs. <annotation
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 08 January 2024 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6B7C1519AF for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:22:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIbt352Grpfn for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96412C15198F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dcbf2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.203.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4T818t55LNzDCdB; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:22:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 726427358.0215451-d8b694d4366a12c470a685e9a4c66af1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 18:22:38 +0100
Message-Id: <E3704184-4A11-4772-B660-954ECF1C860A@tzi.org>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/3rOb7CCCrYVbt4oP8kUMTl63CEw>
Subject: [rfc-i] RFCXMLv3: <referencegroup vs. <annotation
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:22:49 -0000
Does anybody know why <referencegroup does not allow <annotation elements? Grüße, Carsten
- [rfc-i] RFCXMLv3: <referencegroup vs. <annotation Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] RFCXMLv3: <referencegroup vs. <annota… Julian Reschke