Hi Joel, On 2024-11-16, at 04:50, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I was somewhat bemused that section 1.1 is clearly a proper terminology > section, citing BCP 14, but for some unknown reason ID-Nit did not recognize it. Thank you for your review, and thank you for noticing this. I’m in that bemused state continuously :-) The reason is that idnits version 2 (which applies heuristics to a plaintext form of a draft) is no longer being maintained [1]. [1]: https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/tree/v2 Unfortunately, idnits version 3 (which can work right on the XML form and therefore should need fewer heuristics) is not at all ready for prime time yet [2] [3]. [2]: https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits [3]: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits3?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07.xml The underlying problem with idnits v2 is that its heuristics don’t know about much of recent RFCXML evolution yet, here specifically reference groups, which now allow us to cite entire BCPs and STDs. Idnits v2 always flags BCPs and STDs (!) as downrefs, and does not recognize a BCP14 reference as being the “RFC2119” reference it looks for. So, for now, we have a little less support from idnits, until idnits v3 is actually completed [3]. [3]: https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/idnits-SOW-00.pdf (Hmm, maybe wrong reference — this document turned 10 years old a couple of months ago.) Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
