Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Preview release of Text Submission Converter, id2xml

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henrik,

Input file: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08
Version: id2xml 1.0.2
Issues: File not originally generated with XML, table-to-figure, lists, numbered sections after References
Files available: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/v3test/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08v3.original
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/v3test/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08v3.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/v3test/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08v3.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/v3test/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08v3-rfcdiff.html

1) The original includes a table that is turned into a figure (instead of vice versa):

Original:
             Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      |   | Generic category   | IPv6 Transition Technology         |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 1 | Dual-stack         | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146],  IVI [RFC6219]    |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 4 | Encapsulation      | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597]   |
      |   |                    | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596]       |
      |   |                    | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE |
      |   |                    | 6VPE [RFC4659]                     |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+


id2xml output:
             Figure 1: IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
    +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | |
              Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology |
   +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 1 |
             Dual-stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
   +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 2 |
          Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219]  |
   +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 3 |
         Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
   +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 4 |
   Encapsulation | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597]  | | | | Lightweight
   4over6 [RFC7596]  | | | | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE | | | |
                             6VPE [RFC4659]  |
      +---+--------------------+——————————————————+


2) FYI - It appears that the Acknowledgements section was removed — probably because it appeared as 
a numbered section after the references.

3) There is a bit of a spacing oddity after “Throughput”.  This is not highlighted in the diff.

Original:

3. Terminology

   A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
   Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and
   reporting formats.

   Throughput (Benchmark)  - [RFC2544]

   Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201]

   Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]

   Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]


id2xml output:

3.  Terminology

   A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
   Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and
   reporting formats.

   Throughput (Benchmark)  - [RFC2544]


   Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201]

   Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]

   Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]


4) Numbering started up again with 1 instead of the expected 6:

Original:

   The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps.

   1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64
   server)

   2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64
   server to authoritative DNS server)

   3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)

   4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
   to authoritative DNS server)

   5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)

   6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)

id2xml output:

   1.  Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64
   server)

   2.  Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64
   server to authoritative DNS server)

   3.  Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)

   4.  Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
   to authoritative DNS server)

   5.  Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)

   1.  Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)

5) This list is interesting as it would probably require the use of the “counter” mentioned at 
https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html#anchor23.

It looks like id2xml turned it into artwork because there was no space between the numbered item 
and the following text.  

If we update to add a space between the numbered item and the following text, we get renumbering.  
Not sure how id2xml could detect such a case.

id2xml:

   Details and parameters:

   1. Caching
   First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
   domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
   exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%,
   40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a
   record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after
   the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache
   and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.

   2. Existence of AAAA record
   First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not
   have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record.

xml:
   Details and parameters:</t>

	<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
1. Caching
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%,
40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a
record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after
the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache
and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.

2. Existence of AAAA record
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not
have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record.
]]></artwork>
	</figure>

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf