At 10:26 PM +0100 11/25/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
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.
They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the
XML by comparing it to what the IESG approved.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf