Re: Lets be careful with those XML submissions to the RFC Editor

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

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.

> (But note drafts are often approved with some remaining "Comments" from
> the IESG review. It is up to the AD in charge and the authors to
> determine whether those should be addressed. And that could happen by
> submitting a new draft version before the approval announcement is sent,
> with RFC Editor notes, in AUTH48, or perhaps even by tweaks in the XML
> file. In all cases the AD should be checking that no inappropriate
> changes are being done.)

The "tweaks in the XML file" seems like a Really Bad Idea. I have 
never seen IESG comments that would take the RFC Editor more than 
half an hour to incorporate by hand from the IESG announcement.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf