Re: [xml2rfc-dev] docName?

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Miek,

On 2019-05-10 09:22, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 10.05.2019 08:54, Miek Gieben wrote:
>> [ Quoting <[e-mail]> in "Re: [xml2rfc-dev] docName?..." ]
>>> I'd like to know the rejection message from the datatracker.  There are
>>> any number of possible rejection reasons that have nothing to do with
>>> docName, even if the description in #76 seems to indicate that it's
>>> related.
>>>
>>> I may be able to fish the rejection reason out if I know the draft
>>> name and
>>> submission date.  Could you provide that?
>>
>> I've asked on the issue. Thanks!
>>
>>>> I know need to make code changes for something that is actually not
>>>> described
>>>> anywhere, but seems mandatory.
>>>
>>> You can expect that docName will continue to be needed.
>>
>> Ok, is this always seriesInfo.value ?
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.47.6
>> Esp considering this changes from filename for an I-D to a number when
>> the document becomes an RFC?

No, the docName should not change to a number; the docName is used to add
metadata about the draft from which an RFC is derived when writing a v3
RFC in html format, and to insert the draft name when writing draft output.

>> Also because there is a number attribute
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.7), which I added eons
>> ago because xml2rfc complained; maybe that can be removed now (because
>> its deprecated) ?

No, as Julian indicates, follow 7749 with respect to metadata.  The number
still indicates which RFC number is to be generated.

	Henrik

>> ...
> 
> I *believe* for now it is safest to just do what RFC *7749* says wrt
> document metadata.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>