Re: [Tools-discuss] Internet Draft Submission

Henrik Levkowetz <> Mon, 15 April 2013 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D334F21F9418 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zaAzagBJQsik for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23F221F9420 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a01:3f0:1:0:9ccf:d415:6e13:1c1] (port=60465 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1URlgg-0007Y3-9X; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:51:22 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:51:22 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:9ccf:d415:6e13:1c1
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Internet Draft Submission
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:51:27 -0000

Hi Christopher,

On 2013-04-15 11:44 Dearlove, Christopher (UK) said:
> I'm trying to update an I-D of which I'm an author. Through finger
> trouble (I presume) I submitted the xml as txt, and unsurprisingly it
> failed IDnits. Unfortunately I failed to realise this and the nature
> of the error messages made me think I had wrong boilerplate. I missed
> the opportunity to cancel then.
> Now any attempt to update the I-D is blocked. If I upload a new
> version it ignores it and only uses the old version. There's a button
> to send all authors an email to the authorised cancellation page. It
> doesn't work - and it's not just me, I've checked and co-author not
> getting it either. And I've tried more than once. So far nothing
> except an automated response from ietf-action.

If the button to send the authors a link to the cancellation page doesn't
work, then we need to fix that.  We're looking at that now.  I've sent
you a message off-list with the relevant link.

> So I think I've found a denial of service attack on the IETF, I could
> upload broken I-Ds where important work is being done and block the
> authors being able to update them.

But only if the action to send the page link to the authors is broken.
That needs to work.

> More seriously, why this behaviour? I think it should be fairly clear
> that if someone (unauthenticated) uploads a document and it's broken,
> the default action should not be to retain it and block all further
> attempts to update that document. Blocking should only be possible
> once authenticated. If someone submits something and it's broken, the
> response should be "this will shortly be discarded, unless you
> authenticate and say you really want this held waiting for
> correction".

I agree.  That's not what the specification (RFC 4228) said, if I remember
correctly, but I think that's the right thing to do.

> But really, I just want to submit my I-D. Last Friday when I started
> this.

Understood.  You should be able to with the link I sent.

Best regards,