Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] #106 (vocabulary): reference for an STD or BCP that contains multiple RFCs

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:42:15 -0000

#106: reference for an STD or BCP that contains multiple RFCs

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 In the meantime (before the v3 vocabulary is available for use), the issue
 is:
   * v1 allowed using multiple annotation elements to get the desired
 output. (See [STD62] in sample_anno_v1.txt)
   * v2 output only contains the first of the annotation elements. (See
 [STD62] in sample_anno_v2.txt)

 The RPC would like for v2 to do the same thing as v1 because this would
 allow the workaround to generate the present format, as well as the format
 described by [http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-styleguide/ the
 future RFC style guide]. An example of the latter:
 {{{
   [BCP9]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
           BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

           Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
           of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.

           Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
           and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
           Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

           Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
           Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
           October 2011.

           Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol
           Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100, December
           2013.

           <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>
 }}}

-- 
------------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
      Type:  enhancement      |     Status:  new
  Priority:  medium           |  Milestone:
 Component:  vocabulary       |    Version:  2.3.11
Resolution:                   |   Keywords:
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/106#comment:4>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:19:45 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Although I disagree on how we work on this feature (we should first come
 up with a *consensus* how this is supposed to look), I do agree that this
 is a bug in the v2 processor. I recommend that you open a bug report.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/106#comment:5>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>