Re: [xml2rfc] tag DL errors on draft submission

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 12/13/19 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 13.12.2019 15:10, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/19 9:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 13.12.2019 14:47, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>> OH, I have not submitted draft-moskowitz-orchid-cshake-01 yet.  I only
>>>> made the changes to the definition section  in preparation for making
>>>> other changes.
>>>>
>>>> So the submit rejection is only on the new-crypto xml.  Both passed 
>>>> the
>>>> xml2rfc script.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Both pass for me with "--v3"; both fail for me without.
>>>
>>> The fact that <dl> is accepted as a child node of <t> seems to be a bug
>>> in xml2rfc; you should report it at
>>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/>.
>>
>> I will do that after we figure out why without the <t> it still failed
>> the submission.
>>
>> See attached.
>>
>> One or more XML validation errors occurred when processing the XML file:
>> draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto-03.xml: Line 123: Element section content
>> does not follow the DTD, expecting ((t | figure | texttable | iref)* ,
>> section*), got (dl)
> > ...
>
> xml2rfc tries to validate this as v2 document, and fails.
>
> I don't know how the submission system detects "v3". Minimally, you
> probably should set the version attribute on the <rfc> element; see
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.rfc.attribute.version>.

I see I have more changes to do in the <rfc> element, as I have 'old' 
deprecated usage to fix.  But meanwhile:

Incompatible schema information: found "rfc2629.dtd" in <DOCTYPE> of a 
version 3 file

So now what?  I thought, well maybe the .dtd for DOCTYPE has changed as 
well.  I tried 7991 and 7749 in place of 2629 and they did not exist.

So I searched rfc7991 for DOCTYPE and did not find any reference!

What do I put there?

I will change <rfc> to current after I get this working......

thanks