IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2B912952D for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HiWTtWx8thIU for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D96B2128B37 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.34] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LsUDg-1dvgjc2FFQ-012209; Wed, 31 May 2017 15:15:00 +0200
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org
References: <20170530211633.65372.qmail@ary.lan> <592E00D4.6070206@levkowetz.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705301949420.56985@ary.qy> <ce470bca-4611-8503-9f70-0e3760299c57@gmx.de> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705310903300.59664@ary.qy>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <c96e3a97-3716-a52e-dbb0-389e882405ef@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:14:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705310903300.59664@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UWyJPPvpuotu09u79Ms6YitH5FHAVlgONxO0QwRhvA3FgEhSUkn en1FqYxDWac64jZgpIJ3dRTWy5G/YI96/Z6vu48AZ9HeLtxgt+13Uk34ZYYZgvWgEtguDI3 MBoe9fPlwHsyMc4hHNcOPlaY4AdfUrXgMS9/LeUHA1/y8COGGgArmieiAd5YB0Y4e1KANS1 7C57Zw1bjgqId1hmZyybg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:rYpqLrxBHog=:30XZjqSsMc/1ZadrEaraTl UQwxRXX+f+ttrZ72Q2tnGb1GUVE9NExnNPlgniGCy1Tph3NADqm1aw7JAW6i6oBPSiGXSxEN+ +6IzYn5E/BYnPOkLrQy9c5io2PeOTHllZbLEFEPlJTs0Dm9JU34ZECf4Y2ULJQYDO6DFFAdpQ 55fPmr0KW05ubOH9BhEhX5S1sXElnZTVE0l3WusiD/N9QjOc1GVoemaXQMVbo2aiFj14nv2pD be5y/0fI7GMe/Cmt1ept7i2r3iEu3Y3EcAznv7Z+KmIejZSrnNxROFqTgZx/FfDclcKdpNeZ9 w98TvbOxjlLtzQ9qE7ON0tiX9yu7GGk73hqQu1HvPZVMaOcwxE4D6i9h/R5No/f/CkJ+b9jK2 jXi3HhNWKR9prAyzhrKNoL8DBhzwvdx05VXXXdBLejd13fdyiXzD3jo7Lt7/P7fvWgvL38spH qdgpjchvbQVobuuxaecZS1tV7gNbb+p+WaE7sy8niuvaE5zMXCVdy2n92Mp3CqZwuEzV4Iw/D O3b50CY9LkJvFuA4uEthfCVgQwINnQT8JPPApK07g+eoynb5YLR0IC/JBUHuyQqA3ot5O41/z 7pzOMxeQ7d+zYZlqpr7w/ojNGpWbPlwMJPv3aNZnD4gmBKmJDYRD52HHOtrXxH7avecJTFQDM 6HwkyBQsDA/xaEwLiGaNJOkNQzhKchcni3I327solBWx6vcdqptU7PNlq9N/Zns1pd1x4Ej2A ed5BgAZvsa6XZCsTB8ghZg4Qx+JwLUZ31HqCcxvFQMz7HDiyfcaY/GGUjTqOmr7XSi+YguWLW kYzRRsv
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/4D2o8yqnEVo1Ar2PJFb1exz_iCg>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:15:19 -0000

On 2017-05-31 15:06, John R Levine wrote:
>> So if it's obvious, why do we have published RFCs with broken DOIs? 
>> This is something that could have been avoided if the formatter had 
>> done a sanity check.
> 
> Beats me.  If the references had come from bibtex, they'd be right, so 
> who knows what other tools they haven't been using.  As you surely know, 
> we can write all the tools we want but we can't force people to use them.
> ...

Well, we know that an xml2rfc processor *is* used. That processor could 
do a sanity check on the DOIs, in which case the problem might have been 
detected during AUTH48.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email