As many of you know, when a draft is approved and sent to the RFC Editor, authors are asked for the XML source of the draft. This makes the subsequent editing easier, if XML2RFC has been used. Recently, one of the drafts that I am responsible for had an interesting problem with this. The authors mistakenly submitted wrong version of the source file. Its an easy mistake to make. I know I at least keep several versions of my source files around. If there are multiple authors they might forget who was the last one with the submitted source, and so on. What made this particular incident nasty was that the wrong file was merely a wrong candidate for the final submission, not an earlier draft version with a different version number. So things went forward all the way to AUTH48. Amusingly, the RFC Editor though that the changes had been introduced intentionally by the authors, and the authors thought that the changes were introduced by the RFC Editor. Luckily we did catch the error eventually, because the RFC Editor kept bugging me to approve the changes. While the changes in this case were not catastrophic, this was one of those drafts where the precise wording had been debated at length. It would have been unfortunate to publish something else than what had been agreed to. I'm telling this story in order to alert people to be careful. In particular, please be careful in submitting your XML file that it indeed corresponds to the draft that was approved. Also, AUTH48 review is, perhaps contrary to expectations, useful. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf