IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch still needed?

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Mon, 25 October 2021 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D313A08DC; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lT2zX9BJAZdj; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F6B3A0905; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996C06256E; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Ow2jEQSh1qj2; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx140e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF1D66247F; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>
References: <ab61777c-5446-c7c8-1ba1-ec8d8bde2cd4@htt-consult.com> <2A985F36-1332-497F-8DDC-2531245FA8A3@tzi.org> <CADyWQ+FQLoK047A=34VdayGu0s4Q9pnL0FnXkcFs=uAbpcH-Zg@mail.gmail.com> <17adc707-6d65-3455-7fb0-ae82d88e0b77@htt-consult.com> <CADyWQ+G0kbe27wN=p4Zjx4VJFZS7889ytfkos+DjZ19AbccbDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <57487cdf-aafa-52d6-bf84-c66bdadcb0c3@htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:29:12 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+G0kbe27wN=p4Zjx4VJFZS7889ytfkos+DjZ19AbccbDg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1F5822CF567F5E0ED666C471"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/w23LT0RV0xLmOxPzgTE01TyBheU>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch still needed?
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:29:46 -0000

I just did the test with my draft-ietf-drip-rid doc and they were identical.

I will proceed with caution, but being I am lazy and saving typing 5 
characters (when I copy the draft file name into the terminal window) I 
will happily stop including this option.

As I said, I would *THINK* that the <rfc ... verison=3> content in the 
xml should flag xml2rfc how to proceed.

On 10/24/21 4:35 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:39 PM Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com 
> <mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com>> wrote:
>
>     I am on ver 3.10.0, but like how do you know that the proper txt
>     was built and not some fall back to whatever v2 would do?
>
>     Perhaps mv what I did with --v3 to a different name, run without
>     the option and use rfcdiff to compare the two txt files?
>
>
> I tested it just as you said and my files were identical.
>
> Your Mileage, etc etc
>
>
> tim
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email