Re: [xml2rfc-dev] consensus=true warning

Henrik Levkowetz <> Mon, 18 November 2019 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4FB12089D for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2LY4Nevyxzs for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B12BD12088A for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:59405) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1iWWdI-0003Pu-Vn; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800
To: Martin Thomson <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 03:19:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3kuSKjGNPPJjvOkrwPSqDpwL93PC0adtt"
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] consensus=true warning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:19:19 -0000

On 2019-11-18 03:09, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019, at 10:04, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Right.  I think the schema authors made a mistake in giving this field a
>> default value.
> So you are saying that if I set a value of false explicitly, then you
> are unable to distinguish this from the default AND that this is my
> fault?

?? No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say.  I'm not trying to blame
you at all, in any way.  I'm trying to explain that the warning is there
as a result of having a default value for a field which probably should
not have one, and the preptool phase being required to set that value if
no value has been set.

> Or am I confused.
> Also, where do you get the idea that status="standard" +
> consensus="false" is invalid?  That is always true for a draft.

The schema default values make no distinction between drafts and RFCs.

My preference would be to have a default value for this attribute, as it
causes multiple issues.  Since pretty much every issue I tried to bring
to this list because I saw that it needed change resulted in hours and
hours of interminable discussions, I had to choose between getting the v3
tools out, or sit and discuss forever.  The warning is my way of not
sweeping this issue under the mat.