Christian, The "bug" is that xml2rfc now inserts "https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/"; and "https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info"; whereas idnits checks for "http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/"; and "http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info"; Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema > Sent: 04 September 2017 20:53 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Nits and XML2RFC > > > > On 9/4/2017 12:42 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > I just formatted a draft using xml2rfc and the online tool, > > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/. Then I submitted the result for > > publication. And it was refused because the submission checking tool > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ found 4 errors in the copyright and > > IPR boilerplate. This is weird, because my draft used the xml2rfc option > > ipr="trust200902". But it seems that the xml2rfc tool and the submission > > checking tool disagree. I get an interesting message, complaining about > > errors such as this one: .... > > As far as I can tell, the only difference between one text and the other > > are the position of the line breaks. Of course, the line breaks are > > chosen by the editing tool, and I have no control. > > > > Any suggestion on how to fix my draft? > > > OK, I managed to fix the submission. My mistake was to submit both a > text document and an XML document. Since the xml2rfc editor used by the > submission tool produces a slightly different format than the xml2rfc > online tool, this generated nits. Probably the results of some recent > change. Anyhow, I fixed the submission by submitting only the XML > document. That appeared to be working. > > -- > Christian Huitema