Re: [Tools-discuss] Specifying stream in kramdown-rfc?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 05 May 2022 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 CE827C1594BF for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 15:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q38z71grVzQu for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07883C1594B3 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 15:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KvTbK1pTczDCbc; Fri, 6 May 2022 00:56:45 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-eX6hg59g5F7+WnzvsLBaem-L3=vz37yx=nAo8UzxmMuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 00:56:44 +0200
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 673484204.811191-bdf0784034c4706256a44f809d960e58
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <65694804-92DF-408B-BE8E-B74F37943B77@tzi.org>
References: <CAKKJt-eX6hg59g5F7+WnzvsLBaem-L3=vz37yx=nAo8UzxmMuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/V6A2v_g-mw6pAqPGg0j0FFi-6Nk>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Specifying stream in kramdown-rfc?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Thu, 05 May 2022 22:56:54 -0000

On 2022-05-06, at 00:29, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> I'm running make on a kramdown-rfc file that is saying 
> 
> draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons.xml(11): Warning: Expected a valid submissionType (stream) setting, one of IETF, IAB, IRTF, independent, but found None.  Will use 'IETF' 
> 
> My first guess was to say "stream: IETF" near the other pi fields, but I don't think that's working. 
> 
> What am I missing?

submissiontype: IETF

(And it is not a pi, just a top-level YAML entry.)

In RFCXMLv3, the stream is called “submissionType” [2], the Kramdown-rfc deStudLiFier allows you to write submissiontype (but maybe I should add “stream” as an alias).  You still have to write IETF in upper case, because that is the actual value of the attribute [1]:

>> 2.49.12. "submissionType" Attribute
>> 
>> Possible values:
>> ( "IETF" | "IAB" | "IRTF" | "independent" )
>> Default value:
>> "IETF"
>> The document stream, as described in [RFC7841]. (The RFC Series Editor may change the list of allowed values in the future.)

I’m thinking about generating the default automatically, as xml2rfc is nonsensically warning about the default value being used (that’s why it’s the  default?  It’s not a “fallback” value…).

(I’m also planning to put in a standard set of “silence” PIs…)

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#section-2.49.12
[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#appendix-A.2