IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 02 June 2017 12:42 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 CF5E4129515 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 AHSQY3qgO78E for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:42:23 -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 23F1A12EB6B for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:42:22 -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 0MTBLi-1dRBWN0NfS-00S9GU; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:42:05 +0200
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, xml2rfc@ietf.org
References: <20170602122943.2124.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <d8469478-1c83-6bb5-5e0d-85413d473707@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:42:03 +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: <20170602122943.2124.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Kbu/oQt49ra82/V7P1yU9hgQk8izbdj/c/VQQ/bODnlIl13Hai+ QDNwCg3IVgbcqvOsbZ9j4e4X9CnOwGJUvXxFrPs/1+Ho1Zj8a/+m1G69ctNMuO7skLCZwz2 kvhrCIlyp8NTa0AqwhKg1ffU6bfrUiQW7oPAydfh5cah4GqfeMesM/ti3uNHn0l6FLxADLy kfhyzMC4Xgd/MoLTFGnTg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:wOY2KnUewPw=:IYg8ep9UmDdVY6aIvR2d9j csY+Fk+UlPmmhTe584Uw7WguVNb2jcJceBBEkZqppCKg0n/26TV0zTjj6QXWQFJzLDUyXIwTt U9ajdxGCSV/Sbye4Su7YrbVNczHxuMvCPON7vu2AxcEB0jj601Avpl0O3/3wlxwHbS+Nbc0Qf ZrenSpQM1EiU9rtlm8XveJtc1bwuEozJ9DAalxYXbsS8KE7V9BrNofh9wCFXDSSZK+Ewy85yM bxTm2AiTgHTXcnwljJxM+Xs1c5+NHc2DJ9Ri8RitOsMlkElt3kv90XulSOUrEwupV+7Axeib6 KRiyV6TfT76XleAd5j5YGPEhRH3KUTOxHIJ9qujYInR01WVL77ma9neup1Nf7IpAQ5iQQYUD5 R8iV4y/ak7U0TeLidhCZXzolPNRJbe7QAqCYG4VFneSP53/RWkql7XNDuXVJwRvk5kaEOUAyc HK8TiGDJlEw2IuZFS9n5mJhY4JgyU8yh1ziBwXP9HRAUqe4siy9pyMMCFTZNzZRPI01eHbQNw Ll2AygkDOIWhZ1HmlNjgS44uvyHK14KJF+0HXn7aHL6neWTjBsTL+aYC1aiUHwdDXLxQ9VHCZ tgQrCRHOEbOHLn07mz7ORal2oVGQlTJUb70HvXWgSC/p7/9M7Qep4/fbY5pg0R24AemIkexzk 0KFsQi7ZiXvedV6YgjAxevzDwnDrowvxRjwPxp0DcmvR5lNNNo56knDd/1sQxj1PNF9BAPb8x CXICmddoHz6nqZKA7i94wXD1rQwcks/plB1Ia3fPR/LigtmWltOQ/PgphGIOvE56qvBaoQabE bAmiCE5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/G2IWIbaWwi9a6Bh_rdE0LNMMWPo>
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:42:25 -0000

On 2017-06-02 14:29, John Levine wrote:
> In article <c96e3a97-3716-a52e-dbb0-389e882405ef@gmx.de> you write:
>>> 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.
> 
> Well, sure, it could fetch them and make sure they work, and not just
> for RFCs.  Should I put in a feature request?
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> PS: it is my impression that some RFCs were still coming through nroff
> until quite recently.


...those I found were already broken in the AUTH48 XML.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email