Subject: XML2RFC and 2010?

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:01:22 +0000

I am trying to prepare a draft using XML2RFC online, and I am getting the error

xml2rfc: error: I can't synthesize a date in 2009 around input line 58

Context (format:  "file_basename:line_in_file:#elem_num:<elem ...>"):
    CGI5001.1:53:#1:<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-behave-address-format-03.txt" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="2765">

Any idea why?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "jiangt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:45:34 +0800

Christian,

Do you use the lastest release of xml2rfc (i.e., 1.35, http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html) ?  In IETF tools (http://tools.ietf.org/), the version is 1.34.

Tian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
To: "The IETF" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: XML2RFC and 2010?

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:26:36 +0100

>     CGI5001.1:53:#1:<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-behave-address-format-03.txt" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="2765">

What's the date element in /rfc/front?

Best regards,

Julian

PS: the docName attribute should not contain the file extension, but 
that's an orthogonal issue...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:51:49 +0700

Christian Huitema [mailto://[email-masked]] writes:

>     CGI5001.1:53:#1:<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-behave-
> address-format-03.txt" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="2765">
> 
> Any idea why?

I can get the same thing by using a date element like <date year="2009"> and
making xml2rfc fill in the rest.  Change it to <date year="2010"> :-).

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:10:35 +0100

Glen Zorn wrote:
> ...

Yes. Both xml2rfc and rfc2629.xslt allow you to default year/month/day, 
but only as long as the values you *do* provide match the current date.

For IDs, my recommendation is to *always* set all three elements, so 
that when the document is regenerated later again, it will have the 
proper submission date.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:44:32 +0700

Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

...

> that when the document is regenerated later again, it will have the

I'm a little puzzled by this: why would I want to regenerate a draft?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:16:24 +0100

> I'm a little puzzled by this: why would I want to regenerate a draft?

Maybe you only have the XML source under version control, and you want 
to check the actual text you submitted? (without relying on somebody 
else having it archived).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:03:25 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'Christian Huitema'" <[email-masked]>; "'The IETF'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 3:16 AM
> Subject: Re: XML2RFC and 2010?
...
...

That will only work if one also has the generating tool and library files
(such as the bibliography data) under version control as well, and if
 one trusts the tool suite to have no other date-dependent behaviour.  From
a configuration management perspective, those are some huge "ifs".

I think one would be safer keeping both the source and
the submitted generated files under version control.

Randy

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:45:43 +0100

> the submitted generated files under version control.

The output of the tool shouldn't change unless the input changes. And 
yes, I also think that references either need to be in-line, or version 
controlled with the source :-).

Best regards, Julian