[xml2rfc] Re: 1.30pre1 patch + pending issues

[paul.hoffman at vpnc.org (Paul Hoffman)]

At 6:43 PM +0200 4/21/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>>>  Should xml2rfc itself be mentioned in the
>>>  "Acknowledgment(s)" section?
>
>>  Not sure what you mean here.
>
>At the moment xml2rfc without <?rfc private="whatever" ?> says:
>
>| Acknowledgment
>|
>|   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided
>|   by the Internet Society.
>
>This is a part of what I call "fullshit", fine for RfCs if the
>RfC editor wants it, but irrelevant for I-Ds.

Fully agree. It is silly for us to talk about the RFC Editor funding 
in every Internet Draft.

>   A pointer with
>the version number of xml2rfc would be more interesting.

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
>From LMM at acm.org  Thu Apr 21 13:17:34 2005
From: LMM at acm.org (Larry Masinter)
Date: Thu Apr 21 12:17:49 2005
Subject: [xml2rfc] 1.30pre1 patch + pending issues
In-Reply-To: <p06210275be8d7cabd8e9@[165.227.249.220]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> I disagree. Remember, the person writing the draft should in fact 
> read what the tool outputs and can even change it if they feel like 
> it. Regardless of which of the ipr=foo options they choose, they need 
> to read what the tool outputs.

But
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt
proposes allowing Internet Draft authors the option of uploading
only the XML, and having the text automatically generated by
the submission tool.

Larry