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. This argues that XML files be submitted as the authoritative source at the time of WGLC, Paul, if they are going to be submitted at all, and the I-D manager generates the text. I'm fine with that, by the way. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf