Subject: [Tools-discuss] id submission tool bugs/features

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:09:48 +0200

The tool is unable to figure out what the draft name is if
the docName attribute in XML2RFC did not include the
draft revision number (draft-foo-00). Even if the actual
uploaded file name would contain the -00. Perhaps the
uploaded file name doesn't make it through the web upload,
or maybe the information just isn't used. In any case,
XML2RFC does not complain of such errors, and the error
message given by the submission tool was not very helpful:
Your request was not processed due to the following error(s):
/Previous version does not exist for this document/

I was submitting a -00. I would suggest that at least the
error message be made more descriptive.

The tool thinks that in my draft the first section is
a part of the abstract. (draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-00.txt,
if anyone wants to debug).

Jari

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:18:19 +0100

Jari Arkko wrote:

> The tool thinks that in my draft the first section is a part
> of the abstract. (draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-00.txt,

I had a similar problem last week with news-nntp-uri-06, this
week (-07) I tested a manual override to truncate the abstract.

Apparently my I-D then ended up in a "manual posting requested"
limbo, an ietf-action@ietf ticket rescued it, but the abstract
wasn't truncated to the "real" abstract.

 Frank
-- 
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tools/784>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:45:53 +0200

> wasn't truncated to the "real" abstract.

Right. I chose incorrect metadata over going
into the manual queue :-)

Jari

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:53:32 -0800

> wasn't truncated to the "real" abstract.

Frank,

  To be clear, did you have to submit the ietf-action ticket yourself
or do you mean that the tool submitted the ticket for you?

  And you edited the abstract using the tool, but the abstract in the
announcement was still the incorrect one?

Thanks,
  Bill

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:18:14 +0100

Bill Fenner wrote:
 
> did you have to submit the ietf-action ticket yourself

The submission tool mentions "one or two workdays", after
about 50 hours I lost my patience and sent an e-mail to
ietf-action@ietf.  There was an ugly bug in version -06
of this I-D, that's why I wanted -07 out, and on another
list somebody sent feedback yesterday, I didn't want him
to get the impression that -07 intentionally ignored his
(later, from my POV) contribution.

> you edited the abstract using the tool, but the abstract
> in the announcement was still the incorrect one?

Yes, also in .../state.xml and .../state.  Apparently an
oddity with the title in -06 was fixed, the -07 title is
fine.  I only saw this now after Julian's article about
the .../state.xml for draft-hutzler-spamops (RFC 5068).

 Frank