Hi Julian, On 2007-11-25 22:26 Julian Reschke said the following: > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> At 10:45 PM +0200 11/25/07, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> I'm telling this story in order to alert people to be careful. >> Another option is that the RFC Editor should be more careful. It really >> isn't that hard for the RFC Editor to run xml2rfc on the XML file and >> wdiff it against the draft that is approved by the IESG, and bring >> noticeable differences to the two parties. > > This sounds to me that the submission process should ask *either* for > the TXT file or the XML file, and when the XML file was sent, use > xml2rfc to produce the TXT file. Accepting only the TXT version is what the original spec says (see RFC 4228) for the first version of the tool. Accepting and running the XML file and verifying the txt file if one was supplied is part of a later version of the tool. After multiple suggestions indicating that it would be valuable to make it possible to upload the XML file also in the first version, we made that change. In other words, yes, this is a sensible suggestion, and it's part of the spec, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf