From tony@att.com Fri May 7 05:52:26 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4063A6A86 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:52:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7prmHUvsbZr for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00A33A69AA for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1273236728!25467475!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 20942 invoked from network); 7 May 2010 12:52:08 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-9.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 May 2010 12:52:08 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47CppfQ031887 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:51:51 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47Cpmrp031840 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:51:48 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47Cq4Li004972 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:52:04 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47Cq09m004913 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:52:00 -0500 Received: from [135.70.18.228] (vpn-135-70-18-228.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.18.228]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20100507125159gw100b8i8be> (Authid: tony); Fri, 7 May 2010 12:51:59 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.18.228] Message-ID: <4BE40CEE.6090905@att.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 08:51:58 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Syed Wasim Ali Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XML Developer List Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 12:52:26 -0000 Syed, do you still have time in your schedule to do some xml2rfc hacking? Tony From syed.ali@neustar.biz Fri May 7 07:16:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0BD3A6AE2 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.182, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0O+YheN4HyqA for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neustar.com (keys.neustar.biz [156.154.16.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C17F3A67D4 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neustar.biz; s=neustarbiz; t=1273241740; x=1588596715; q=dns/txt; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Language: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=+Xt0VZltQEsEbKjElC3jb y4tvF1wUVYhUyolLXbT84I=; b=QMzr0cqQfkLVYQQUf0YIbTBXgGgaUILVFqPXO HavAjbsxSfwJjtS9lJnKR8ZsUIInYYsKl78EpU28BE7Yij3bg== Received: from ([10.31.13.31]) by stihiron1.va.neustar.com with ESMTP id G6K7MJ1.8918879; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:15:39 -0400 Received: from STNTEXCHHT01.cis.neustar.com ([10.31.13.228]) by stntexch12.cis.neustar.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 7 May 2010 10:15:39 -0400 Received: from STNTEXCH02.cis.neustar.com ([fe80::f828:7b2d:14aa:84b7]) by STNTEXCHHT01.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:15:38 -0400 From: "Ali, Syed Wasim" To: Tony Hansen Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:15:38 -0400 Thread-Topic: moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl Thread-Index: Acrt5B1jvl+ftLVKTkGTlZIhdgkpWQAC6btd Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4BE40CEE.6090905@att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: R64IxjzeHPwwd+efoj3ZcA== x-ems-stamp: 7pnptO1CbBbmRSaKKgy7Tw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2010 14:15:39.0945 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5786990:01CAEDEF] Cc: XML Developer List Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 14:16:02 -0000 I will make the time. I have been meaning to get back into it. Please, let me know what to look into next. thanks. On 5/7/10 8:51 AM, "Tony Hansen" wrote: > Syed, do you still have time in your schedule to do some xml2rfc hacking? >=20 > Tony >=20 >=20 From julian.reschke@gmx.de Fri May 7 07:30:16 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079D33A691E for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.635, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nT8RmkQQo+aB for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F5E43A6AB2 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2010 14:29:59 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.116]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 07 May 2010 16:29:59 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1961dBrMi564XVDcWZYAZv96kZslv++VvtncEVMGq 2kuIXXQxMV/b+Z Message-ID: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:29:51 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ali, Syed Wasim" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML Developer List Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 14:30:16 -0000 On 07.05.2010 16:15, Ali, Syed Wasim wrote: > > I will make the time. I have been meaning to get back into it. Please, let > me know what to look into next. > > thanks. > ... The most important one for the *RFC Editor* should be -- however it may make sense to contact the RFC Editor to make sure that nobody else is already looking into this. If you just want to get your hands dirty, might be a good candidate to get familiar with the source. Best regards, Julian From tony@att.com Fri May 7 07:56:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98B83A6B42 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.236 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.363, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZqzL+cKNPnjc for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A093A6950 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1273244163!28406456!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 2844 invoked from network); 7 May 2010 14:56:04 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 May 2010 14:56:04 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47EuGe0025924 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:56:16 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47EuEB7025871 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:56:14 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47Eu0p6031892 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:56:00 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47EtwkW031853 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:55:59 -0400 Received: from [135.70.18.228] (vpn-135-70-18-228.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.18.228]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20100507145558gw100b8i97e> (Authid: tony); Fri, 7 May 2010 14:55:58 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.18.228] Message-ID: <4BE429FC.8070304@att.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:55:56 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ali, Syed Wasim" References: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XML Developer List Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 14:56:19 -0000 Let me paraphrase what's in ticket/6: 1) add the consensus=yes|no tag to 2) when , depending on the submissionType, category and consensus values, generate a) different headers b) different Status of this Memo c) different Copyright Notice 3) some combinations are probably undefined For the expected output, see http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-hab-latest.html#rfc.section.3 Tony On 5/7/2010 10:29 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 07.05.2010 16:15, Ali, Syed Wasim wrote: >> >> I will make the time. I have been meaning to get back into it. >> Please, let >> me know what to look into next. >> >> thanks. >> ... > > The most important one for the *RFC Editor* should be > -- however it > may make sense to contact the RFC Editor to make sure that nobody else > is already looking into this. > > If you just want to get your hands dirty, > might be a > good candidate to get familiar with the source. > > Best regards, Julian From ahagens@amsl.com Fri May 7 08:01:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AF83A698F for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id If+u6qkTP0zj for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB9228C118 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B271AE0767; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c1a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c1a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLoDjUi+P1V7; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc2.home (pool-173-73-54-24.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.73.54.24]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26A22E06FD; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Alice Hagens In-Reply-To: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:00:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <13F12C85-72FD-48D8-A1EF-D66FBD74406C@amsl.com> References: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:01:21 -0000 Julian, Yes, resolving ticket 6 (the changes to header and "Status of This Memo" = text per RFC 5741) would be extremely helpful. No one on the RFC Editor = side is looking into making the changes. (However, we are happy to = discuss or further document the requirements, which I sent a message = about on 4/13 to xml2rfc-dev.) Thanks, Alice [for the RFC Editor] On May 7, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 07.05.2010 16:15, Ali, Syed Wasim wrote: >>=20 >> I will make the time. I have been meaning to get back into it. = Please, let >> me know what to look into next. >>=20 >> thanks. >> ... >=20 > The most important one for the *RFC Editor* should be = -- however it = may make sense to contact the RFC Editor to make sure that nobody else = is already looking into this. >=20 > If you just want to get your hands dirty, = might be a good = candidate to get familiar with the source. >=20 > Best regards, Julian > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc-dev mailing list > xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev >=20 From julian.reschke@gmx.de Fri May 7 08:06:24 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D633A6B69 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.16 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.561, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xNYRpcJFUo+Q for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D496F3A6851 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2010 15:06:09 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.116]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 07 May 2010 17:06:09 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19LGyobdMRLC5bEnyCQhYwenyMJCfIQBMq/LGMtQe WgqyApKUoZv3oY Message-ID: <4BE42C58.9040608@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:06:00 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> <4BE429FC.8070304@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4BE429FC.8070304@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML Developer List Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:06:24 -0000 On 07.05.2010 16:55, Tony Hansen wrote: > Let me paraphrase what's in ticket/6: > > 1) add the consensus=yes|no tag to > > 2) when , depending on the submissionType, > category and consensus values, generate Hm, no. It should solely depend on whether a RFC is generated or not (that is, the presence of /rfc/@number). > a) different headers > b) different Status of this Memo > c) different Copyright Notice Yes. > 3) some combinations are probably undefined > > For the expected output, see > http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-hab-latest.html#rfc.section.3 Best regards, Julian From tony@att.com Fri May 7 08:11:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1948E28C126 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUMhabljJVI1 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB973A68E4 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1273245052!18347249!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 26438 invoked from network); 7 May 2010 15:10:53 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-4.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 May 2010 15:10:53 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47FAZSH012594 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 11:10:35 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47FAUCO012479 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 11:10:30 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47FAl4Z012674 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:10:47 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o47FAkWp012640 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:10:46 -0500 Received: from [135.70.18.228] (vpn-135-70-18-228.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.18.228]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20100507151044gw100b8i9be> (Authid: tony); Fri, 7 May 2010 15:10:45 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.18.228] Message-ID: <4BE42D73.2070108@att.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:10:43 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> <4BE429FC.8070304@att.com> <4BE42C58.9040608@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4BE42C58.9040608@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XML Developer List Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:11:50 -0000 Julian, thanks for the confirmations and correction. So instead of looking for rfcedstyle="yes", look to see if has a number= attribute. Syed, is this enough to get started? Tony On 5/7/2010 11:06 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 07.05.2010 16:55, Tony Hansen wrote: >> Let me paraphrase what's in ticket/6: >> >> 1) add the consensus=yes|no tag to >> >> 2) when , depending on the submissionType, >> category and consensus values, generate > > Hm, no. It should solely depend on whether a RFC is generated or not > (that is, the presence of /rfc/@number). > >> a) different headers >> b) different Status of this Memo >> c) different Copyright Notice > > Yes. > >> 3) some combinations are probably undefined >> >> For the expected output, see >> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-hab-latest.html#rfc.section.3 >> > > Best regards, Julian From ahagens@amsl.com Fri May 7 08:59:31 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661553A68E4 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eROP1cUmbtnS for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629273A6869 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F88E07DC; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c1a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c1a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SxvIs5mCFC0; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc2.home (pool-173-73-54-24.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.73.54.24]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53DAE07D7; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Alice Hagens In-Reply-To: <4BE42D73.2070108@att.com> Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:59:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7B10E97E-364F-432A-A45D-08B9EE7B2C05@amsl.com> References: <4BE423DF.2090200@gmx.de> <4BE429FC.8070304@att.com> <4BE42C58.9040608@gmx.de> <4BE42D73.2070108@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] moving forward with xml2rfc.tcl X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:59:31 -0000 Yes, good point, Julian. If 's number attribute is present, it's an = RFC. Here is a summary of 'Status of This Memo' combinations from the RFC = Editor's perspective, in terms of the values of submissionType, = category, and consensus. (Below, where a consensus value is not listed, = it is irrelevant.) They are numbered to correspond to the SoTM text on = http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/status-memos.txt. submissionType-category-consensus --------------------------------- 1. IETF-std-yes=20 2. IETF-bcp-yes =20 3. IETF-exp-yes =20 4. IETF-exp-no =20 5. IETF-historic-yes=20 6. IETF-historic-no =20 7. IETF-info-yes =20 8. IETF-info-no =20 9. IAB-historic =20 10. IAB-info=20 11. IRTF-exp-yes use workgroup element. 12. IRTF-exp-no use workgroup element. 13. IRTF-exp no workgroup element present. 14. IRTF-historic-yes use workgroup element. 15. IRTF-historic-no use workgroup element. 16. IRTF-historic no workgroup element present. 17. IRTF-info-yes use workgroup element. 18. IRTF-info-no use workgroup element. 19. IRTF-info no workgroup element present. =20 20. Independent-exp =20 21. Independent-historic 22. Independent-info=20 > c) different Copyright Notice Copyright Notice is not mentioned in the list above. It seems determined = by submissionType, and an indicator whether these should be added: - the 6.c.iii legend (pre-5378) - we currently do this by setting = ipr=3D'pre5378Trust200902' (This is an exception case, where the ipr = value is not ignored for an RFC.) - the 6.c.i legend (no derivative works) - currently = ipr=3D'noDerivativesTrust200902' is ignored when the document is an RFC = so we do not have a way to add this legend. (Already submissionType=3D"Independent", "IRTF", or "IAB" yields the = correct copyright notice for the alternate streams from TLP 4.0.) Please let me know if there are questions. Thanks, Alice On May 7, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: > Julian, thanks for the confirmations and correction. >=20 > So instead of looking for rfcedstyle=3D"yes", look to see if has = a number=3D attribute. >=20 > Syed, is this enough to get started? >=20 > Tony >=20 > On 5/7/2010 11:06 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 07.05.2010 16:55, Tony Hansen wrote: >>> Let me paraphrase what's in ticket/6: >>>=20 >>> 1) add the consensus=3Dyes|no tag to >>>=20 >>> 2) when , depending on the submissionType, >>> category and consensus values, generate >>=20 >> Hm, no. It should solely depend on whether a RFC is generated or not = (that is, the presence of /rfc/@number). >>=20 >>> a) different headers >>> b) different Status of this Memo >>> c) different Copyright Notice >>=20 >> Yes. >>=20 >>> 3) some combinations are probably undefined >>>=20 >>> For the expected output, see >>> = http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-hab-latest.html#rfc.section= .3=20 >>=20 >> Best regards, Julian > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc-dev mailing list > xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev >=20