On 6/13/2018 10:44 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> Le 13/06/2018 à 20:02, Warren Kumari a écrit :
>> I'm assuming you tried it with the docName attribute as
>> "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-24" ?
>
> That is not the full draft name.
>
> The full draft name is draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-24.txt
>
> Right?
>
Sort of. The TXT version is indeed the reference version of the draft,
but there are also HTML and PDF versions, and XML source. I assume that
this is why we have a conflict between the popular belief that the draft
name is "draft-example-07.txt", and the tool's developers conviction
that the draft name is "draft-example-07", which can produce
"sraft-example-07.{txt|xml|html|pdf}". But as JCK noted, "the present
situation somewhat resembles a hazing process of torturing newcomers".
Not just newcomers, in fact. I fell for that bug quite a few times
recently, then slapped my forehead and remembered to go remove the
".txt" from the doc name. Repeat that too often and you end up with a
bruised forehead.
What is even more irritating is that our tools are inconsistent. I
usually verify that my draft is correct by passing the XML text through
the xml2rfc tool, conveniently provided at xml2rfc.ietf.org. That's a
nice tool. It will catch various kinds of nits of nits, and will let me
check that the draft prints nicely. But guess what? It will accept a
draft name ending in ".txt" just fine. No nit, nothing. That special
trap is left for the submission stage.
So, one way or another, we need to fix it.
-- Christian Huitema
