From ahagens@amsl.com Wed Apr 13 12:58:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9667BE0796 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZyCdT+vIfDSb for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D79E06BC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4774EE08CD; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:57:59 -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 0prlOEmjMqkA; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc2.home (pool-72-66-107-92.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.107.92]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6E91E086B; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Alice Hagens Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-147446761 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:57:57 -0400 Message-Id: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> To: XML Developer List Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: RFC Editor Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:58:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4-147446761 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be = published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while = we're looking at it. When ipr=3D"noModificationTrust200902" (and number=3D"XXXX" so xml2rfc = is producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for = "Copyright Notice" is: Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. We believe it should be: Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the=20 document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of = the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. =20 This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Sample files attached. Thanks, Alice for the RFC Production Center --Apple-Mail-4-147446761 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=sample.xml Content-Type: application/xml; x-unix-mode=0644; name="sample.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]> An Example An example.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in .
None.
&rfc2119; --Apple-Mail-4-147446761 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=sample.txt Content-Type: text/plain; x-mac-type=54455854; x-mac-creator=74747874; x-unix-mode=0755; name="sample.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Mous Request for Comments: XXXX April 2011 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 An Example Abstract An example. Status of this Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Mous Standards Track [Page 1] =0C RFC XXXX An Example April 2011 Table of Contents 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mous Standards Track [Page 2] =0C RFC XXXX An Example April 2011 1. Requirements notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Mous Standards Track [Page 3] =0C RFC XXXX An Example April 2011 2. Security Considerations None. Mous Standards Track [Page 4] =0C RFC XXXX An Example April 2011 3. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Mous Standards Track [Page 5] =0C RFC XXXX An Example April 2011 Author's Address Anon Y. Mous Mous Standards Track [Page 6] =0C --Apple-Mail-4-147446761-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Apr 13 14:11:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25702E0858 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:11:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.671, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QL-BSgJxgfd3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D59FE06EA for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 21:11:26 -0000 Received: from p508FDD65.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.221.101] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 13 Apr 2011 23:11:26 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/N7ORn9Q3NDMaCkqndr0DJVJyaV7VHszjMtghbTz u4dp1rgML2X4Rb Message-ID: <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:11:18 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alice Hagens References: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:11:32 -0000 On 13.04.2011 21:57, Alice Hagens wrote: > Greetings, > > This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while we're looking at it. > > When ipr="noModificationTrust200902" (and number="XXXX" so xml2rfc is producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for "Copyright Notice" is: > ... The difference being that This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. is missing. My understanding was that @ipr only affects Internet-Drafts, except for the pre5378-escape-clause, but a reading of the TLP confirms that this clause indeed could occur in a non-standards-track RFC. Is this the case here? Best regards, Julian From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Apr 14 04:36:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B1DE0740 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WPKdDhY63Br for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C5D2E06CA for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2011 11:35:59 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.131]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 14 Apr 2011 13:35:59 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/HVn1hyo3HEoyab8r7EG6ncBQ30ojxfXRR/ZNRwv w0YQSX/ch8J/r1 Message-ID: <4DA6DC1B.2070006@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:35:55 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alice Hagens References: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:36:02 -0000 On 13.04.2011 23:11, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 13.04.2011 21:57, Alice Hagens wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be >> published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while >> we're looking at it. >> >> When ipr="noModificationTrust200902" (and number="XXXX" so xml2rfc is >> producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for >> "Copyright Notice" is: >> ... > > The difference being that > > This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not > be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to > translate it into languages other than English. > > is missing. > > My understanding was that @ipr only affects Internet-Drafts, except for > the pre5378-escape-clause, but a reading of the TLP confirms that this > clause indeed could occur in a non-standards-track RFC. > > Is this the case here? > ... Furthermore, could you please have a look at ? This seems to use two different clauses, which, in xml2rfc, would be mutually exclusive. Can you confirm that this is a mistake in the published document? Best regards, Julian From ahagens@amsl.com Thu Apr 21 13:45:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873CEE074E for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYQgwnKbyOxq for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C682BE06B9 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89EDE08C5; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:35 -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 yOUK1MHBcyFa; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (c-76-30-69-22.hsd1.tx.comcast.net [76.30.69.22]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A630E08BC; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Alice Hagens In-Reply-To: <4DA6DC1B.2070006@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:45:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4E507003-CA13-47B6-A48E-BB7CA18070EF@amsl.com> References: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> <4DA6DC1B.2070006@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:45:37 -0000 Julian wrote: > Furthermore, could you please have a look at = ? >=20 > This seems to use two different clauses, which, in xml2rfc, would be = mutually exclusive. Can you confirm that this is a mistake in the = published document? >=20 You are correct. That is a mistake in RFC 5728. The following interpretation of the TLP has been confirmed with the = Trust: - 6.c.i is a stronger limitation that 6.c.iii, so if 6.c.i is included = 6.c.iii is not needed any longer. (where 6.c.i is the text created by ipr=3D'noModificationTrust200902' = and 6.c.iii is the text created by ipr=3D'pre5378Trust200902') Thanks, Alice for the RFC Production Center From ahagens@amsl.com Thu Apr 21 13:46:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5201AE074E for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W1YHPb4iANeY for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9473E06B9 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A44E08C1; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:01 -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 xYy1IZFkS9Nx; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (c-76-30-69-22.hsd1.tx.comcast.net [76.30.69.22]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF7D3E0879; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-16-841530063 From: Alice Hagens In-Reply-To: <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:46:00 -0400 Message-Id: <2809FD2E-CD0B-4725-A102-94A5354C05AA@amsl.com> References: <21A7A3FA-B35E-4505-ADF1-3FE642AD0642@amsl.com> <4DA61176.10504@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: XML Developer List , RFC Editor Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:46:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail-16-841530063 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 13.04.2011 21:57, Alice Hagens wrote: >> Greetings, >>=20 >> This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be = published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while = we're looking at it. >>=20 >> When ipr=3D"noModificationTrust200902" (and number=3D"XXXX" so = xml2rfc is producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for = "Copyright Notice" is: >> ... >=20 > The difference being that >=20 > This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not > be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to > translate it into languages other than English. >=20 > is missing. >=20 > My understanding was that @ipr only affects Internet-Drafts, except = for the pre5378-escape-clause, but a reading of the TLP confirms that = this clause indeed could occur in a non-standards-track RFC. >=20 > Is this the case here? >=20 > Best regards, Julian >=20 Yes. It was my mistake to have category=3D"std" in the sample file that = I sent. I agree with you that the TLP states that 6.c.i's use is limited = to non-Standards-Track RFCs. (where 6.c.i is the text created by = ipr=3D'noModificationTrust200902' in xml2rfc) The request still stands regarding the ability to generate 6.c.i in an = RFC. Attached is an updated sample file using category=3D"info", whose = output also lacks the text. Thanks, Alice for the RFC Production Center --Apple-Mail-16-841530063 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=sample2.xml Content-Type: application/xml; name="sample2.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]> An Example An example.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in .
None.
&rfc2119; --Apple-Mail-16-841530063--