Subject: [xml2rfc] #411 (Version_3_cli_txt): title for <reference> appears to be required

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:43:19 -0000

#411: title for <reference> appears to be required

 ...but is optional according to RFC 7991.

 {{{
 references-test.xml(16): Error: No name entry found for section, can't
 continue
 }}}

 (xml2rfc --v3 references-test.xml)

-- 
-----------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  medium                 |  Milestone:
Component:  Version_3_cli_txt      |    Version:  2.23.*
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/411>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:24:57 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => wontfix

Comment:

 Since there can be one or two level of <references>, and both normative
 and informative references, and since RFC 7991 doesn't specify what should
 be rendered as Section Title
 if there is no <name> entry, this cannot be implemented.

-- 
------------------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
      Type:  defect                 |     Status:  closed
  Priority:  medium                 |  Milestone:
 Component:  Version_3_cli_txt      |    Version:  2.23.*
Resolution:  wontfix                |   Keywords:
------------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/411#comment:1>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:39:56 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 RFC 7991 doesn't specify rendering.

 Historically, when there was no name, the title was "References". This has
 worked for ages, so I don't understand why it needs to be dropped.

 Apparently nobody has written that down, and we should have done that
 somewhere.

 Failing on the input is a bug, until you add that costraint to the
 documentation of the language.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/411#comment:2>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>