IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04 HTML page

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 26 April 2011 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3BFE07ED for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i9TcVflujR8b for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2001:4870:a30c:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF34E07BF for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.150] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3QFSvNr052285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:28:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DB6DDF9.1060105@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:28:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB52D9ED-F7D1-4A74-B37A-7E5720011B8E@vpnc.org>
References: <4DB59F62.9000701@gmail.com> <198D2050-3684-4087-B49B-4AC3DBD183B7@frobbit.se> <4DB6DDF9.1060105@gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04 HTML page
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:29:02 -0000

On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> I complained about Rfcmarkup tool analyzing the draft's name, not its contents when deciding to put pr not to put some RFC as the previous version of the draft.  It is logically useful when some draft obsoletes another RFC when approved, eg. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-00 where we have "(RFC 1150) 00" label.
> 
> The draft I pointed to has no any regulations regarding obsoleting anything; Rfcmarkup, though, added the label of RFC 5892 being the previous version of it.  My complaint was about abnormal handling of the draft name/header while finding out Obsoletes/Updates relationships.

With all due respect, your first complaint was without any merit. Your new complaint, that the header listing an RFC as a version of a draft as being "abnormal", is silly as well. The link there is advisory and for the benefit of someone reading the current draft. If you don't like that link, ignore it.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email