Re: [Tools-discuss] Strange IDnits behavior (or is it something else?)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 22 September 2020 08:47 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 455ED3A1566 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 ihsZeuJMus6t for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F84F3A1564 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BwZgM4JfSz106V; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-40F89401-BC93-4509-8742-997AA9C82072
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3f032b28-3159-355e-db2c-8be749fad47e@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:47:10 +0200
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-Id: <62DFB505-CFC9-4C8C-A09B-F08644135BBC@tzi.org>
References: <3f032b28-3159-355e-db2c-8be749fad47e@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A373)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/ze_O3KTfPL5nIhIK_59AzRehAfA>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Strange IDnits behavior (or is it something else?)
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, 22 Sep 2020 08:47:17 -0000

Most likely; it seems to think the expiry date is the document date. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 22. Sep 2020, at 10:29, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 30.07.2020 um 04:44 schrieb Spencer Dawkins at IETF:
>> I'm working on a draft and getting some weird behavior when running
>> IDnits and trying to submit the draft.
>> 
>> In IDnits, I'm getting
>> 
>>   -- The document date (January 2021) is 170 days in the future.  Is this
>>      intentional?
> 
> ...maybe caused by xml2rfc v3's change in date format in the boilerplate?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org