Hi Edward, on 2007-01-24 15:14 Edward Lewis said the following: > At 0:06 +0100 1/24/07, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >>So the answer is that the requirements for this are in the ID-Checklist, which >>applies to drafts that are submitted for IESG consideration, rather than in >>the ID-Guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) which apply >>to draft submitted to internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx in general. >> >>The ID-Checklist is referenced from the same page you referred to earlier, >>http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, a couple of lines below the reference and link to >>the ID-Guidelines. > > You're right, and I noticed all of that. > > What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my > submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official > feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official > word. After all, one recommendation was to just use the XML2RFC tool > and not bother interpreting the requirements. Ah, I see. > Apparently my draft did finally get announced - although I haven't > checked to see which version came out. (I.e., which -00, differing > in boilerplates.) What I'm trying to vent here is a plea to make the > instructions for submitting a draft a bit clearer, for instance, > recommend a run of the nits tool and also say whether or not the nits > tool's assessment is binding or not. Right. This should improve when the web-based draft submission tool (based on the RFC 4228 specification) comes online, which is planned to happen in time for Prague. Currently, the secretariat has a separate script to check ID-Guidelines conformance, and its results aren't always identical with those of idnits. When the web-based submission tool comes online, it will use idnits in an ID-Guidelines checking mode instead of a separate script, so the results of the ID-Guidelines section of the idnits check should always match the automated checking done by the submission tool, and the submission tool should show clearly what was amiss if a problem is found with a submission. idnits will continue to indicate non-conformance with the ID-Checklist, too, but errors reported in this section of the output only becomes a show-stopper at the time the document is sent to the IESG. ( That doesn't mean that ID-Checklist nits can't be fixed earlier, of course ;-) I hope that helps a bit. Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf