On 2010-02-27 13:17 William Allen Simpson said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> Your initial 'bugreport' contained no specifics whatsoever. >> >> You inappropriately sent the 'tool is broken' message to the whole IETF >> general discussion list, in addition to addressing me directly (so it's >> not as if you didn't know where to direct a bug report). >> > All IETF draft submitters need to know promptly, as Monday is the deadline > for -00 version internet-drafts. So you're still maintaining that it's good and right to send out a notice of a problem widely and provide no information which makes it possible to resolve it? Bah! > It took some time (2 hours) to figure out that you had written the tool > that generated the bad output, as the secretariat does not put your name > (nor the tool name nor the version number) in their response message. > > I'm regretting wasting my time (finding you). So am I. > And you probably shouldn't increment the .trivial for such a huge change. > That was really a major change (as was 1id_guidelines itself). > > Maybe that's the reason the secretariat didn't think it was important > enough to install. You're not duplicating what I've been saying. The tool *was* installed on February 4th. Somewhere there's been a slip-up, but translating that into evaluation of importance is nonsense. >> All of the above earns you no respect with me, and that colours my >> responses. Next time, send a bug report to the secretariat or to me >> directly, containing specifics that lets us *fix* the problem, rather >> than blazoning an unspecific and unhelpful 'Things don't work' message >> across the sky, and you might get a different tone back. >> > It was reported to the secretariat directly ~13:53 EST by 'phone, but > could not be fixed promptly. > > AFAICT, it's still not updated! > > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ > > At this very moment: > > Version: 2.12.00 Ooh, that's not good. The .01 version is only available on some of the tools servers, not all. Fixed. > Author: > > Note the author is missing here, too. Funny. I see my name quite clearly on the web page there. > Also, the verbose output doesn't count line lengths correctly. Apparently, > it is including the non-printing FF in the count. Not good. > > <sarcasm> > Also, this was somewhat amusing: > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. 'RFC 3232') (Obsoleted by > RFC 3232) > > Outstanding! Fails on the reference to RFC 1700 in the *title* of the > RFC 3232 reference that obsoleted RFC 1700: I'm afraid I can't comment on this, as the error message is based on the content of the reference entry in your document, which you've not seen fit to provide, although I requested it in my first note. > 1432 [RFC 3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by > 1433 an On-line Database", January 2002. > </sarcasm> > > At least the secretariat was smart enough to know that "**" pseudo-error > was bogus, and didn't include it in their message to me. I'm very gratified that you actually expect a mere computer program written by me to be able to make human grade intelligent evaluations of content. > As I wrote previously, get off your high horse. We really don't need the > attitude.... My attitude to you, sir, is that you should make it possible for me to fix things, by providing information instead of generalities of the "it doesn't work" type. I do what I do as a volunteer, and I certainly don't need the aggravation of broadcast generalities of this kind. > Next time, test to see that your own code was installed and > actually works. It's obvious that you never tested much of anything. It would be obvious to you if you'd looked at the idnits report of your own submission that idnits *had* been installed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/display_idnit.cgi?submission_id=21622 So I'm afraid that your idea of what's obvious doesn't count for much with me. Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf