IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] How do we diagnose DOI errors?

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 20 October 2020 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 C12AC3A1042 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:11:50 -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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ln8fnabsBIRg for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8ED3A103F for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E60C38999; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uy0e_t77km10; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3668B38997; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032881CC; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9ba7b514-99ff-f828-1610-868d849bfaa1@gmx.de>
References: <181dadfc-37bf-46ad-b907-853cad3dccd2@www.fastmail.com> <9ee90430-405b-4cf2-b1e7-5d241698a108@www.fastmail.com> <32564.1603119444@localhost> <8b5ebbef-6dca-1f56-0576-f395815c4b40@gmx.de> <9568.1603129249@localhost> <cc0cf5ac-8706-12c4-5014-a95e7b607bd2@gmx.de> <26473.1603140152@localhost> <9ba7b514-99ff-f828-1610-868d849bfaa1@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:11:45 -0400
Message-ID: <31737.1603206705@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/takq4F_gSim6igv1K-mzboLyrF8>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] How do we diagnose DOI errors?
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:11:51 -0000

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
    > Am 19.10.2020 um 22:42 schrieb Michael Richardson:
    >>
    >> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
    >> >> If you use a specific URL, then it needs to be alive.
    >>
    >> > Yes.
    >>
    >> > But I would call that "robustness", not "portability".
    >>
    >> I plug in
    >>
    >> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174" ?>
    >>
    >> and the tool figures out where to get the data.

    > But that's not part of the official xml2rfc vocabulary.

As long as I can submit RFCs to the RFC-editor with this syntax, and it
passes idnits, etc., then I think it is part of the xml2rfc vocabulary, and
the official document might be wrong :-)
(PS vs IS)

I know that this is a source of dispute.
I don't know how we are going to fix this.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email