Subject: RE: [Iptel] idnits draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-01

From: "Jennings, Cullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:28:29 -0700

I was looking at 01 - I wonder what happened to the 02. Could you please post a copy of the 02 somewhere and mail a link to the list or send me a copy and I can post it somewhere. Or just send a copy to the list. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thu 10/27/2005 10:21 AM
To: Jennings, Cullen; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Iptel] idnits draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-01
 
Now this is very curious
 
are you talking about -01 or -02?
 
Lawrence sent in a draft -02 on 14.9 which never showed up
(as I saw now)
as far as I know Lawrence is normally checking the idnits before
 
Richard

________________________________

Von: [email-masked] im Auftrag von Cullen Jennings
Gesendet: Do 27.10.2005 18:40
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [Iptel] idnits draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-01

idnits 1.73 (17 Jun 2005)

draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-01.txt:

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement.
    (The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like
    boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate.  After 6 May 2005,
    submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not
    accepted.)

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:03:07 +0100

Hi Cullen, folks,
  Sorry about that chaps. Eye off the ball here. Repeat after me -  
"Do not Assume".
I just checked by mail server logs, and it seems to have fallen into  
a black hole in transit - there's no report of rejection at my end,  
but I didn't receive the auto-confirm, so something strange must have  
happened.
I will re-send to I-D when we come out of shadow.
For now, Richard has sent a copy to the list. For filling up your  
mailboxes, my apologies.

Re. id-nits: this is generated from XML using the latest version (at  
the point of generation) of XML2RFC, so it won't have nits.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 27 Oct 2005, at 19:28, Jennings, Cullen wrote:

>
> I was looking at 01 - I wonder what happened to the 02. Could you  
> please post a copy of the 02 somewhere and mail a link to the list  
> or send me a copy and I can post it somewhere. Or just send a copy  
> to the list.
>
>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:33:18 -0700

Ok, I'm pretty sure I have tracked down what happened to this. The IPR
statement is wrong and it was rejected. It looks like it has the 3667 IPR
boiler plate and it needs the 3978. Anything submitted after last May
without the 3978 has been rejected.

Check you xml has ipr="full3978". Run idnits. XML2RFC will generate many
things that contain all kinds of problems including lines too wide, invalid
characters, and bad IPR.

>From a review point of view, it looks like there is no difference from the
01 version to the 02 version that got mailed to the list. Is that correct?