Re: [xml2rfc] Acknowledgments in Back?

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

:)

On 5/21/20 5:03 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-05-21, at 17:51, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> See
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.section.attribute.numbered>.
>> Try
>>
>>   numbered=“false"
> (And for the historians, who will want to find the source of the confusion in a hundred years:
>
> numbered=“no” was added in an informal manner to the v2 syntax that is documented in RFC 7749 (2629).
>
> The first RFC that I can find that was authored with this was RFC 7401, by a certain
>
>     <author initials="R." surname="Moskowitz"
>       fullname="Robert Moskowitz" role="editor”>

I just checked draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-20.xml, and no numbered= at all.

This was put in by the RFC editor.  Though it is nice to know we were 
the first test draft->rfc.

>
> and others, and the last one was RFC 8649, of August 2019.
>
> Of course, “yes” and “no” are not pedantically pure Boolean values, so in the name of consistency this was changed into “false” and “true”.  The v2v3 converter of course understands the old attribute names; so kramdown—rfc users often use them, but not all of them:
>
> RFC 8470 of September 2018 is the first RFC I can find with numbered=“false”, and this was built with kramdown-rfc.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>