I am very grateful for the efforts of Henrik and the rest of the tools team. They provide their services to the entire community with little recognition and no pay. They try very hard to keep the tools current and relevant. When I have found bugs, I have done my best to report them with very clear description of the problem that I encountered. And then, the problems have been corrected quickly. In my experience, a respectful interaction leads to speedy corrections. I think it is time to end this thread. It seems the most recent update was not installed on all of the tools servers, and that has been corrected. Russ Housley IETF Chair On 2/27/2010 7:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf