Subject: Re: [proto-team] Fwd: ID Nits

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:24:55 -0800

Lars,

This sounds like a good idea  - we can do it as a Note to the RFC Editor.
We should say what the idnits run means: the boilerplate is clear according
to version <xx> of idnits.  The Checklist review in depth is not done
till a personal review by the Shepherd.

Allison

Something we may consider changing in the draft.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
> Date: October 26, 2006 7:57:09 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: ID Nits
>
>
> Dan,
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:05:45AM -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>>>> I guess this means we should all stress in our respective WGs that
>>>> authors should always check their drafts with that tool before
>>>> submitting a supposedly final revision.
>>>
>>> And the PROTO shepherd needs to also personally check this. The
>>> writeup specifically asks:
>>
>> Instead of "have you run it", how about asking:
>>
>>   The PROTO shepherd should indicate which version of idnits
>>   was run against the document.
>
> I like this idea.

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