Subject: [Tools-discuss] http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:22:52 -0700

OK, mumblefratz. Having fixed the RFC 2119 statement to be literally  
that which RFC 2119 requires, I get the following.

What do I have to do to get the file to pass idnits with the exact RFC  
2119 inclusion *and* dereferencing the bibliographic reference to RFC  
2119?

------------------------
idnits 2.11.11

tmp/translate-03.txt:
tmp/translate-03.txt(355): RFC 2119 keyword:    MUST be updated.  This  
is different from [RFC2765], since [RFC2765].
tmp/translate-03.txt(408): RFC 2119 keyword:    perform path MTU  
discovery the translator MUST always include an IPv6.
tmp/translate-03.txt(429): RFC 2119 keyword:    packet larger than  
1280 bytes the IPv4 packet MUST be fragmented.
tmp/translate-03.txt(458): RFC 2119 keyword:       Precedence".  An  
implementation of a translator SHOULD provide the.
tmp/translate-03.txt(495): RFC 2119 keyword:    unexpired source route  
option is present then the packet MUST instead.
tmp/translate-03.txt(497): RFC 2119 keyword:    failed" (Type 3/Code  
5) error message SHOULD be returned to the.
tmp/translate-03.txt(542): RFC 2119 keyword:    IPv4 packet and the  
checksum field is zero the translator SHOULD drop.
tmp/translate-03.txt(545): RFC 2119 keyword:    fragments other than  
the first it SHOULD silently drop the packet,.
tmp/translate-03.txt(549): RFC 2119 keyword:    checksum field is zero  
the translator MUST compute the missing UDP.
tmp/translate-03.txt(551): RFC 2119 keyword:    SHOULD maintain a  
counter of how many UDP checksums are generated in.
tmp/translate-03.txt(723): RFC 2119 keyword:    recalculation and  
updating of the transport-layer headers MUST be.
tmp/translate-03.txt(732): RFC 2119 keyword:    performed.  UDP/IPv4  
datagrams with a checksum of zero MAY be dropped.
tmp/translate-03.txt(733): RFC 2119 keyword:    and MAY have their  
checksum calculated for injection into the IPv6.
tmp/translate-03.txt(734): RFC 2119 keyword:    domain.  This choice  
SHOULD be under configuration control..
tmp/translate-03.txt(753): RFC 2119 keyword:    header and the  
transport-layer headers MUST be performed.  This is.
tmp/translate-03.txt(835): RFC 2119 keyword:       translator SHOULD  
provide the ability to ignore the IPv6 traffic.
tmp/translate-03.txt(903): RFC 2119 keyword:    then the packet MUST  
NOT be translated, and an ICMPv6 "parameter.
tmp/translate-03.txt(906): RFC 2119 keyword:    Segments Left field,  
SHOULD be returned to the sender..

   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt 
:
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document,
      'draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate', does not give the document  
revision number

   == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as
      'draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate', but the file name used is  
'translate-03'

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Miscellaneous warnings:
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first
      submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the
      disclaimer?

   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative  
references
      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

   == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 957, but no  
explicit
      reference was found in the text
      '[RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate  
Requi...'

      Summary: 1 error (**), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).