Clarification below: On 2007-11-25 22:39 Henrik Levkowetz said the following: > 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. Since the draft submission tool is accepting XML files in addition to TXT files, I'm referring to that procedure above. I completely agree that it makes sense for the RFC Editor to check that the recievied XML files correspond to the received and approved TXT file. Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf