At Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:09:37 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > At 11:58 PM +0200 11/25/07, Jari Arkko wrote: > >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. > > I'm confused. Why should the RFC Editor accept XML with any > substantial changes? That's inherently prone to error. They should > start with what was approved. I agree with Paul here. The TXT is what the IESG approved. The XML is just a convenience. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf