Paul, > > They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the XML > by comparing it to what the IESG approved. Yes, and they do compare to what IESG approved. Substantial changes are brought to the AD's approval. This is what caused us to find the problem in this case. (But note drafts are often approved with some remaining "Comments" from the IESG review. It is up to the AD in charge and the authors to determine whether those should be addressed. And that could happen by submitting a new draft version before the approval announcement is sent, with RFC Editor notes, in AUTH48, or perhaps even by tweaks in the XML file. In all cases the AD should be checking that no inappropriate changes are being done.) Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf