Subject: [Tools-discuss] XML2RFC (online version): Appendixes

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:03:43 -0500

I'm trying to add an appendix to a draft I'm writing with XML2RFC.  I'm
using the online converter (http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/) to process
it.  I am using what I think is the correct format:

    <rfc category="std" docName="draft-worley-sip-happy-earballs-00"
      <front>
        ...
      </front>
      <middle>
        ...
      </middle>

      <back>
        <references title="Normative References">
          ...
        </references>
        <references title="Informative References">
          ...
        </references>
        <section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments" numbered="no">
          ...
        </section>
        <section anchor="exponential" title="Implementing Load Balancing">
          ... this is the part that matters ...
        </section>
      </back>
    </rfc>

However, the appendix ("Implementing Load Balancing") is not numbered
"Appendix A", and "<xref target="exponential"/>" is rendered as
"[exponential]" rather than "Appendix A".

Is this intended?  Is there a way to change it?  Might I be using an
incorrect "<?rfc ... ?>" processing instruction?

Thanks for any help,

Dale

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:35:17 +0100

> incorrect "<?rfc ... ?>" processing instruction?

a) Note that @numbered is supposed to take true/false, not yes/no. The 
latter values are historic/experimental; don't use them.

b) You can't have a section numbered when the predecessor is not 
numbered. This might be the reason why xml2rfc is confused.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 06:59:07 -0500

> latter values are historic/experimental; don't use them.

It's "historic", but that's what the online version requires.  If I use
"false", I get

    ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT
    INPUT: Line 1327: Value "false" for attribute numbered of section is not among the enumerated set

> numbered. This might be the reason why xml2rfc is confused.

My understanding is that the expected order for the back matter is:

    References
    Acknowledgments
    Appendixes

If the Acknowledgments section is unnumbered, then it seems that there
is no way to get XML2RFC to number the Appendixes.

What's the best way out of this dilemma?

Dale

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:09:45 +0100

>     INPUT: Line 1327: Value "false" for attribute numbered of section is not among the enumerated set

That has been fixed quite some time ago: 
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/changeset/2247 -- maybe 
the online version needs an update.

> What's the best way out of this dilemma?

Put the Acknowledgments last, or keep them numbered.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:26:45 -0500

> Put the Acknowledgments last, or keep them numbered.

And indeed, putting the Acknowledgments last has been the style, at
least since RFC 8000.  Thanks for correcting me on that!

Dale