Subject: [Tools-team] FW: [xml2rfc] 1.30pre1 patch + pending issues

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:30:29 -0700

There was a discussion on XML2RFC, but I think perhaps
it might belong in the submissions draft instead...
that no update to the XML processing software
shouldn't result in change in wording or meaning,
so that the author's intent is clear from the archival
record.

If you like this idea, I can try to figure out where/how
to word it in the draft.

Larry

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:35:04 +0200

> If you like this idea, I can try to figure out where/how

Well -- since we save both the .txt and .xml version, and
since we can't influence what will happen if somebody runs
a future version of xml2rfc on the archived .xml, I'm not
sure if there's anything more we could/should specify in
the submission draft...

But maybe I don't see what you're getting at, exactly.  What
did you have in mind?

	Henrik

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:13:54 -0600

> so that the author's intent is clear from the archival

The intent should be clear, but I doubt we can codify that beyond  
requiring the author to check Toolset's interpretation and rendering  
(which we already do).

One thing we could add, I suppose, is a requirement for a one-line summary  
of the extracted IPR. For example, the Toolset can say "Detected IPR  
boilerplate: Foo Bar" on the Check page. We already require the Toolset to  
check IPR statements, so this extra requirement would be on rendering of  
already extracted information. This could be useful for submission  
troubleshooting as well because without this extra line, there would be no  
way to check whether the Toolset correctly classified IPR when multiple  
IPR templates are accepted. Should we add the above rendering requirement?

Thanks,

Alex.

P.S. Note that even the xml2rfc discussion ended with a strange (IMO)  
resolution that ipr=RFC is a sign of "clear intent" and ipr=BCP is not.