IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 27AF4129515 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 nRDn0yYchXpA for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64353129AEE for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 51178 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2017 12:30:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2017 12:30:05 -0000
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:29:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20170602122943.2124.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: xml2rfc@ietf.org
Cc: julian.reschke@gmx.de
In-Reply-To: <c96e3a97-3716-a52e-dbb0-389e882405ef@gmx.de>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/ZT9IFiyeleH_H7fEujiS7upcub0>
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 12:30:09 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email