At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:21:05 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:21:05 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > > 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. Actually I think this is backwards. The text file is the authoritative reference, as always. The XML file, when processed with xml2rfc, must generate text which is identical to the text file. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf