idnits 2.17.1 draft-hoffman-rfcexamples-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 9, 2014) is 3481 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 22 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Intended status: Informational T. Hansen, Ed. 5 Expires: April 12, 2015 AT&T Laboratories 6 October 9, 2014 8 Examples of the 'XML2RFC' Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies 9 draft-hoffman-rfcexamples-00 11 Abstract 13 This document gives examples of use of the "XML2RFC" vocabulary. The 14 examples cover both version 2 and version 3. The purposes of this 15 draft it to give authors of Internet Drafts examples of how to use 16 the XML vocabularies, and to show how use of the version 2 vocabulary 17 will change with version 3. 19 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) 21 Discussion of this draft takes place on the rfc-interest mailing list 22 (rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org), which has its home page at [1]. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2015. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Example of a v2 Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. Example of a v3 Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 63 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 64 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 1. Introduction 68 This document gives examples of use of the "XML2RFC" vocabulary. The 69 examples cover both version 2 [XML2RFCv2] and version 3 [XML2RFCv3]. 70 Some of the examples are given to help authors use parts of the 71 vocabulary common to both versions (called "v2" and "v3" in this 72 document), while others appear in order to help authors transitioning 73 from version 2 to version 3 to see how features from the earlier 74 version relate to features in the later version. 76 This document currently only has one main example, which shows the 77 commonly-used XML elements. A future version of the document may 78 have a more complete example, and will very likely have topic- 79 specific examples (such as lists, tables, and so on). 81 2. Example of a v2 Document 83 The following is a v2 document that has all the elements that are 84 needed for typical Internet Drafts. 86 87 90 ]> 92 93 95 101 102 103 An Exmaple of Using XML for an Internet Draft 104 106 107 Examplecorp 108
109 110 123 Exemplar Way 111 Anytown 112 California 113 95060 114 US 115 116 +1 123-456-7890 117 chrissmith@example.com 118
119 121 123 124 125
126 jk@lmn.op 127
128 130 132 General 133 Imaginary WG 135 XML 136 Imagination 138 140 This is an example of an abstract. It is a short paragraph that 141 gives an overview of the document in order to help the 142 reader determine whether or not they are interested in reading 143 further. 144 146 148 150
152 This is this is the first paragraph of the introduction to this 153 document. This introduction is probably much shorter than it would 154 be for a real Internet Draft. 156 Something to note about this paragraph is that it has a 157 pointer to , and one to 158 , both of which appear later in the 159 document. 161 164
166 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 167 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 168 in this document are to be interpreted as described in 169 . 171
173
175
177 This is a reference to . 178 Actually, the reference itself is not all that interesting, but the 179 way that the reference is incorporated is. Note that the inclusion 180 of RFC 2119 was done at the top of the XML, while the information 181 for RFC 6949 is done directly in the references section. 183
185
187 Bulleted lists are good for items that 188 are not ordered: 190 191 This is the first item. 193 This is the second item. Here comes a sub-list: 195 197 This is the first sub-item. 199 This is the second sub-item 201 203 This is the item after the sub-list. 205 207 209 Numbered lists are good for items that are ordered: 211 213 This is the first item. 215 This is the second item. Here comes a sub-list: 217 219 This is the first sub-item. 221 This is the second sub-item 223 225 This is the item after the sub-list. 227 229 231
233
235 The following is a figure with a caption. 236 Also, it uses the ampersand (&) and less than 237 (<) characters in the example text. 238
239 240 The ampersand (&) and 241 the less than (<) are two characters 242 that need escaping. 243 244
246
248
250 None. 252
254
256 There are no security considerations for an imaginary 257 Internet Draft. 259
261
263 Some of the things included in this draft came from 264 Elwyn Davies' templates. 266
268 270 272 274 &RFC2119; 276 278 280 281 RFC Series Format Requirements and Future 282 Development 283 285 288 289 290 291 293 295 296 298 3. Example of a v3 Document 300 The following is a v3 document that has all the elements that are 301 needed for typical Internet Drafts. It was converted from the 302 example in Section 2. 304 305 309 312 313 314 An Exmaple of Using XML for an Internet Draft 315 317 318 Examplecorp 319
320 321 123 Exemplar Way 322 Anytown 323 California 324 95060 325 US 326 327 +1 123-456-7890 328 chrissmith@example.com 329
330 332 334 335 336
337 jk@lmn.op 338
339 341 343 General 344 Imaginary WG 346 XML 347 Imagination 349 351 This is an example of an abstract. It is a short paragraph that 352 gives an overview of the document in order to help the 353 reader determine whether or not they are interested in reading 354 further. 356 358 360 362
363 Introduction 365 This is this is the first paragraph of the introduction to this 366 document. This introduction is probably much shorter than it would 367 be for a real Internet Draft. 369 Something to note about this paragraph is that it has a 370 pointer to , and one to 371 , both of which appear later in the 372 document. 374 377
378 Terminology 380 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 381 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 382 in this document are to be interpreted as described in 383 . 385
387
389
390 The Protocol Being Described 392 This is a reference to . 393 Actually, the reference itself is not all that interesting, but the 394 way that the reference is incorporated is. Note that the inclusion 395 of RFC 2119 was done at the top of the XML, while the information 396 for RFC 6949 is done directly in the references section. 398
400
401 Basic Lists 403 Bulleted lists are good for items that 404 are not ordered: 406
    408
  • This is the first item.
    • 410
  • This is the second item. Here comes a sub-list: 412
      414
    • This is the first sub-item.
      • 416
    • This is the second sub-item
      • 418
    • 420
  • This is the item after the sub-list.
    • 422
424 426 Numbered lists are good for items that are ordered: 428
    430
  1. This is the first item.
    2. 431
  2. This is the second item. Here comes a sub-list: 433
      435
    1. This is the first sub-item.
      2. 437
    2. This is the second sub-item
      3. 439
    3. 441
  3. This is the item after the sub-list.
    4. 443
445 447
449
450 Figures 452 The following is a figure with a caption. 453 Also, it uses the ampersand (&) and less than 454 (<) characters in the example text. 456
457 This could be haiku 458 459 The ampersand (&) and 460 the less than (<) are two characters 461 that need escaping. 462 463
465
467
468 IANA Considerations 470 None. 472
474
475 Security Considerations 477 There are no security considerations for an imaginary 478 Internet Draft. 479
481
482 Acknowledgements 484 Some of the things included in this draft came from 485 Elwyn Davies' templates. 487
489 491 493 495 498 500 502 503 RFC Series Format Requirements and Future 504 Development 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 514 516 517 519 4. Security Considerations 521 The examples in this document do not introduce any new security 522 considerations. 524 5. IANA Considerations 526 There are no IANA considerations for this document. 528 6. Acknowledgments 530 The ideas for the examples in this document come from many people 531 over a long period of time. 533 7. Normative References 535 [XML2RFCv2] 536 Reschke, J., "The 'XML2RFC' version 2 Vocabulary", draft- 537 reschke-xml2rfc (work in progress), 2014. 539 [XML2RFCv3] 540 Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", draft- 541 hoffman-xml2rfc (work in progress), 2014. 543 Authors' Addresses 545 Paul Hoffman 546 VPN Consortium 548 EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org 550 Tony Hansen (editor) 551 AT&T Laboratories 552 200 Laurel Ave. South 553 Middletown, NJ 07748 554 USA 556 EMail: tony+rfcv3@maillennium.att.com