Re: possible bug in template check

Hi Lars,

on 2006-06-01 00:11 Lars Eggert said the following:
> On May 31, 2006, at 18:30, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> on 2006-05-31 18:10 Lars Eggert said the following:
>>> On May 31, 2006, at 18:02, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>>   It looks like the text below points to the wrong position in the
>>>> template
>>>> code, (at the full stop, rather than the space after it) but
>>>> otherwise I
>>>> think it's right about the template not being the regular 3978
>>>> template, yes?
>>>
>>> But it's an addition that is explicitly allowed by Section 5.2 of
>>> RFC3978.
>>
>> Yes, but what http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html requires is the
>> IPR Disclosure, verbatim from [RFC3978] section 5.1.
>>
>> So I think the indication is correct here...
> 
> Hm. We may have found a discrepancy between the checklist and current  
> procedure here!
> 
> I have been submitting drafts with the "no derivatives" clause for  
> about two years now (after having an argument with a non-IETF person  
> who claimed that it was OK to copy parts from one of my IDs into  
> other documents without asking, because it didn't include that  
> clause), and the secretariat has always accepted them.

Re: possible bug in template check

Henrik,

On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:32, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> The ID-Checklist isn't checked by the secretariat, and isn't a
> requirement for submitting an ID; it's a checklist for drafts
> submitted for publication as RFC.
>
> The document the secretariat goes by is the ID-guidelines
> (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) which has less strict
> requirements in some respect, but also has some requirements which  
> aren't
> mentioned in the ID-Checklist.

good point.

> Possibly idnits should have switches to control whether it should
> check the checklist, the guidelines, and the extra checks.  I have
> no idea which mode should be the default, since idnits usage seems
> to be shifting from the original early adopters, ADs, via chairs
> using it before sending a draft up for publication, to now more and
> more people using it before submitting even early versions.

IMO it should flag all things fishy together with according to which  
source of rules  those things are flagged, and have command-line  
options to turn off certain rulesets.

But that's probably for the future. For now, I've been convinced that  
the current behavior is a feature 

Thanks,

rfcstrip bug

Hi,

FYI, draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt has a crazy header that  
rfcstrip chokes on.

Lars
--

-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

Re: rfcstrip bug

Hi Lars,

on 2006-06-01 11:51 Lars Eggert said the following:
> Hi,
> 
> FYI, draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt has a crazy header that  
> rfcstrip chokes on.

Bah.  Ok, rfcstrip, idnits and rfcdiff have been updated to handle
this variation, too.

	Henrik

Re: An annoyance

Bob,

Please give an example URL just to avoid ambiguity about the problem.
If there is a way to fix this, it will likely end up in Bill's tracker wish list.

    Brian

Bob Braden wrote:
> The IESG directs the RFC Editor to comments about specific documents,
> listed in their tracker.  The RFC Editor displays these comments and
> prints them out using a browser.  But the display contains not hint of
> the I-D strings to which they apply!!
> 
> It makes this channel nearly useless.
> 
> Bob Braden
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 

Re: An annoyance

I'm being stupid, but I have to ask another question. How does it reach you
if it doesn't reach you as a URL? If it's an email, does that meean the subject
field doesn't contain the draft name?

    Brian

Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> 
>   *> Bob,
>   *> 
>   *> Please give an example URL just to avoid ambiguity about the problem.
>   *> If there is a way to fix this, it will likely end up in Bill's tracker wish list.
>   *> 
>   *>     Brian
>   *> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I expect that if it had a URL, I might already know the answer.  But
> it doesn't have a URL either.  It begins with:
> 
> 	[IN IESG DISCUSSION *Discuss*]
> 
> 	Version: 05
> 
> 	Date and Time: 2005-06-06, 07:39:14
> 
> 	Commented by: Brian Carpenter
> 
> and continues...

idnits bug

Hi,

draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-11.txt contains the RFC2119 boilerplate  
(without a period at the end) but no reference to RFC2119. idnits  
1.101 doesn't catch that.

Lars
--

-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

Re: idnits bug

Hi Lars,

on 2006-06-06 11:24 Lars Eggert said the following:
> Hi,
> 
> draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-11.txt contains the RFC2119 boilerplate  
> (without a period at the end) but no reference to RFC2119. idnits  
> 1.101 doesn't catch that.

Fixed in v1.102, which now requires a period at the end (possibly
with added text between boilerplate and period), and also adds
a virtual reference to [RFC2119] if no actual reference is made
in the 2119 boilerplate section.  The latter seems a bit hacky to
me, but I don't have any better solution.

Regards,

	Henrik

Re: An annoyance

  *> 
  *> Bob,
  *> 
  *> Please give an example URL just to avoid ambiguity about the problem.
  *> If there is a way to fix this, it will likely end up in Bill's tracker wish list.
  *> 
  *>     Brian
  *> 

Brian,

I expect that if it had a URL, I might already know the answer.  But
it doesn't have a URL either.  It begins with:

	[IN IESG DISCUSSION *Discuss*]

	Version: 05

	Date and Time: 2005-06-06, 07:39:14

	Commented by: Brian Carpenter

and continues...

Bob Braden

  *> Bob Braden wrote:
  *> > The IESG directs the RFC Editor to comments about specific documents,
  *> > listed in their tracker.  The RFC Editor displays these comments and

agenda calendar request

Hi,

first off, the iCal feature on http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/65/ 
calendar is awesome!

Two suggestions that would make it even better:

- use cookies that remember which sessions I ticked, so I can come  
back later and get a new calendar with the same sessions, when the  
agenda is updated

- have "mark all area X sessions", "mark all BOFs", etc, buttons

Lars
--

-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss