> 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf While discussing the submission tool, there needs to be a button in the confirmation stage. Just opening the page really leaves the process open to submission race attacks. You should be able to view prior to final acceptance/rejection. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf