[no subject]

idnits (2.08.03)

  * Improved differentiation between ABNF and references

idnits (2.08.02)

  New rev based on input from John Klensin:

  * The note about information on normative references referred to
    RFC 3967 -- added a reference to 4897, which updates it.

  * Improved the extraction of referenced RFC number in references


Regards,

	Henrik

On 2008-02-20 10:24 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.  More inline:
> 
> On 2008-02-20 02:14 John C Klensin said the following:
>> Henrik,
>>
>> I just tried running draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-07.txt through the
>> online idnits checker and discovered several small bugs.   I
>> don't think any of these are urgent, or even nearly-so, but
>> thought them worth reporting and getting into the queue. 
> 
> Yes, that's much appreciated.
> 
>> An annotated extract from the checker output is attached.
>> Comments start and end in ###.
>>
>> best,
>>    john
> 
> 
> 
>> Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>      (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
>>      lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>>
>> ### Probably should mention RFC 4897 since both together are BCP 97 ###
> 
> Right.  Will be fixed in v2.08.02
> 
>>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't:
>>      'Additional-Registered-Clauses' on line
>>      2773
>> '[Additional-Registered-Clauses]...'
>>
>> ### What it is is a piece of ABNF ###  
> 
> Ah.  I have some extremely primitive code to detect whether I'm in ABNF;
> I'm going to use this to try to reduce this problem.  A quick test now
> on the same document shows it working in this case, at least.  Will have
> to see if the regression testing shows negative effects.  If not, this
> will be fixed in v2.08.02.
> 
>>   == Unused Reference: '8' is defined on line 3764, but no explicit reference
>>      was found in the text
>>      '[8]   Newman, C., "ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration",...'
>>
>> ### This actually is in the text, but it appears only in a comment in
>> 	the ABNF. ###
> 
> Hmm.  Not sure what's right thing to do here -- but the ABNF fix did
> unfortunately not eliminate this one.  Should stuff in ABNF comments
> be ignored for this purpose, or not?
> 
>>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2'
>>
>>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC  821 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by
>>   RFC 2821) 
>>
>> ### But this is a reference to text found there that is still
>> 	relevant, so the reference is not precisely to obsolete text ### 
> 
> I looked at the text in the document.  Relevant I'll grant you, but does
> that mean it's normative?  For an informative reference, I'd emit the
> format you see below for 822, is maybe a bit more reasonable?
> 
>>   -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '10'  (No
>>      intended status found in state file of draft-resnick-2822upd)
>>
>>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  822 (ref.
>>      '13') (Obsoleted by RFC 2822)
>>
>>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  974 (ref.
>>      '16') (Obsoleted by RFC 2821)
>>
>>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1869 (ref.
>>      '22') (Obsoleted by RFC 2821)
>>
>>   -- Duplicate reference: RFC822, mentioned in '28', was also mentioned in
>>      '13'.
>>
>> ### This one and the next one are actually interesting, because
>> 	reference [28] is not a reference for RFC822.  It is a reference
>> 	for RFC 2126, whose title is "MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced
>> 	Relay): Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME".  So there might
>> 	be a small parsing problem in the checker. ###
> 
> Right.  This needs looking at, and may not be a fix I can do in just a few
> minutes.  Noted.
> 
>>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  822 (ref.
>>      '28') (Obsoleted by RFC 2822)
>>
>>
>>      Summary: 3 errors (**), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss at ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss