Re: [Xml-sg-cmt] Errata for <bcp14> tags?

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

make it clear that while it's optional in the grammar, the style-guide 
requires them for RFCs (assuming that's true).

RjS

On 11/19/21 12:56 PM, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Do you have thoughts on whether this should be verified?  We have been 
> adding the tagging, so I’m not sure it’s really considered “optional”.
>
> We tag keywords early on in the process and have a tool that checks 
> for correct <bcp14> tagging just prior to pub, but these slipped through.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Errata Verified] RFC8792 (6739)*
>> *Date: *November 19, 2021 at 9:05:34 AM PST
>> *To: *"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Erik Auerswald <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], 
>> [e-mail], Qin Wu <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>
>> I do not think this Errata should've been verified because RFC 7991 
>> says that use of this tag is optional.
>>
>> 2.9.  <bcp14>
>>
>>   Marks text that are phrases defined in [BCP14] such as "MUST",
>>   "SHOULD NOT", and so on.  When shown in some of the output
>>   representations, the text in this element might be highlighted.  The
>>   use of this element is optional.
>>
>> I understand that there might be a consistency issue, but to take an 
>> RFC from having zero errata to non-zero errata over this seems petty.
>>
>> FWIW, the authors did not have any <bcp14> elements in the original 
>> XML.  Any such tags found in the final RFC must’ve been added by a 
>> copy editor.
>>
>> K. // as a contributor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2021, at 9:39 PM, RFC Errata System 
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8792,
>>> "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6739
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Status: Verified
>>> Type: Editorial
>>>
>>> Reported by: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
>>> Date Reported: 2021-11-18
>>> Verified by: RFC Editor
>>>
>>> Section: 7.1.2
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> Exceptionally long lines MAY be folded multiple times.
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> Exceptionally long lines MAY be folded multiple times.
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> The "MAY" in this text lacks a bcp14 XML tag. This is apparent in 
>>> the non-text renderings.
>>>
>>> --VERIFIER NOTES--
>>> This also applies to section 8.1.2
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC8792 (draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-12)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Handling Long Lines in Content of 
>>> Internet-Drafts and RFCs
>>> Publication Date    : June 2020
>>> Author(s)           : K. Watsen, E. Auerswald, A. Farrel, Q. Wu
>>> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>>> Source              : Network Modeling
>>> Area                : Operations and Management
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>
>>
>
>