IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] draft submitted source versions

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Sat, 23 November 2019 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
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 E7B32120806 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:12:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
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 IB7P5ikkHsFS for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42D9A1200CE for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.10.124] (mta-107-13-246-59.nc.rr.com [107.13.246.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B6312EF5C; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 19:12:10 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1574467930; bh=LO3PjJwWgwiud441ikEnf8rMnE7jQUjzrQ9KtdMVpU4=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=LgXEsDuxdqbp7xITAOBbt6MMer5N0wyXqrWhrwLwVG6Mk899eXUUiT8r71GxrUcD8 XQ+lkrmRC5oFGMosJLCoPyCmi0sGzR4oPtq3MGHj5ww3Vx6a39GVJFs42xwRIHtX7R /ec4Vwuft1965KNVAQ+rKVurcfwqn2smVA++JqcEImq6m3Gpih+7//kzucnF4hwoEa wi45BuLQRS19BphTF3b44kBINOPQ3RJqWKfMLBUuWfrh3a1ImU1FeuPVfZb6r/wpwl 0olBHl5Sg5CX9k7pQlew2b4WdqRX1xkZzQXTS0kSCbdo06iDzGDrKy0+jLczWlrwZ3 C8EWmSXMx+IrA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 19:12:09 -0500
Message-Id: <EAA5E776-F29B-43FB-8BBD-7CB6E277AF6C@bangj.com>
References: <bfb1185f-dd96-b3ef-11dc-919f7657bf6e@gmail.com>
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <bfb1185f-dd96-b3ef-11dc-919f7657bf6e@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/OvwtrKaZfQKWuurLlEvZVSHTqoo>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] draft submitted source versions
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 00:12:13 -0000

> On Nov 22, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23-Nov-19 07:39, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> Is there anyway to tell if the TXT version was created from the submitted XML or was uploaded separately?
>> 
>> If an XML version is submitted, is there any reason to allow DRAFT AUTHORS to submit alternate versions still?
> 
> Well, before answering that, I have two supplementary questions.
> 
> 1. What happens if the author submits a.xml and a.txt, but the xml file doesn't convert properly?
> 
> 2. What happens if the author submits a.xml and a.txt, but the converted xml file is different from a.txt?
> 
>    Brian

So, ideally, I think we should accept either .xml or .txt.

What would make sense to me is:

If an .xml is submitted, it is run through xml2rfc and if there’s errors, it’s rejected and no draft is published. The author can choose to submit a .txt instead but not a broken xml.
If it’s accepted, it is converted to all of the formats including txt, pdf, html.

If a .txt is submitted, do whatever checks you do today but don’t accept any other files for submission. The .txt is converted to html and pdf as today. This comes with all the known problems of these conversions today.

Notes this is only for author submissions with no special publishing privileges.

Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email