Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
The problem is that it's the TXT that's approved, not the XML..
This whole thread is about making sure that the XML received by
the RFC Editor matches the Text that was approved by the IESG.
Starting with what was approved necessarily means ignoring the
XML and starting with the TXT, unless they validate that the
XML generates the approved TXT.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek@xxxxxxxxx www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf