Re: Drafts getting bounced with little explanation

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

I *THINK* the issue is that you have to pick up the patched IPR boilerplate *AND* place it
as the first paragraph in the "Status of this Memo" section.

Of course, this neither conforms to 3667/8 nor to the email that we are supposed to
follow.

I have had several email exchanges asking (pleading) to be told what is wrong, and have
had no better answer than "you are not conformant". Several authors in my WG are
scrambling to meet the deadlines and are going frantic.

Can anyone give a good reason why it is not possible to point out how a draft is failing?
Are we playing class-room cricket? Are we trying to slow down the IETF process?

Adrian


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[e-mail]>
To: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Drafts getting bounced with little explanation


> Hi Acee,
>
>     This one passes, for instance:
>
> http://ietf.levkowetz.com/drafts/eap/rfc2284bis/draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-10.e.txt
>
> For more information from the idnits tool, you can run it with
> the --verbose option.
>
> Henrik
>
> On Friday,  9 Jul 2004, Acee Lindem wrote:
> > Hi Henrik,
> > Can you (or somebody) point me to a draft that passes all the
> > nits? I tried a draft that "thought" conformed to 3667/3668 yet
> > the tools says I'm using RFC 2026 boilerplate.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Drafts getting bounced with little explanation
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I've also run into one instance of a draft returned without explanatory
> > > details, and it's quite frustrating.
> > >
> > > One possible help in finding out what the trouble is with a particular
> > > document could be to use the idnits tool I've written
> > >  ( http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits ) - that should report any
> > > ID-checklist violation that doesn't require human judgement.
> > >
> > > But it would be nicer and easier if the secretariat would just indicate
> > > why it is bouncing a document...
> > >
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > >
> > > On Friday,  9 Jul 2004, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> > > > This is frustrating, and I note that the ones that are not bounced do
> > > > not have consistent heading and ordering either.... :-)
> > > >
> > > > Waiting 1-2 days to receive this confusing message is certainly not
> > > > encouraging to new authors/editors.
> > > >
> > > > Gorry Fairhurst
> > > >
> > > > Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes.  I had to compare my (bounced) draft to the ones that were getting
> > > > > through and then submit new boilerplate.   I still don't know what exactly
> > > > > was wrong, but they did get through after I copied successful boilerplate.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Just a heads-up: drafts that are not in perfect format are being
> > > > >>bounced with the message:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>According to the new procedure your I-D has to include some statements.
> > > > >>Please check the
> > > > >>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg00244.html
> > > > >>for more details.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The two rejections that I have seen did not say what was missing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>--Paul Hoffman, Director
> > > > >>--VPN Consortium
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>