From nobody Sun Oct 24 10:45:14 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465043A073E; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pQzfyc4cqiuN; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD6353A0858; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1mehYM-000GqD-BM; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:45:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:44:55 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org cc: tony@att.com, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:45:12 -0000 Hi. The working version of rfc5321bis, draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. While it complies correctly with the online converter at https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ (which was used to create the version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it to v3 using https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 produces a message indicating that the document is empty. This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still ignoring "toc='include'" attributes on fourth-level section elements (e.g., sections with numbers like 4.1.1.1 do not appear in the table of contents) a bug that was identified and reported when RFC 5321 was published in October 2008. In addition, that v2 processor produces page numbers in the index for the text version and nothing but the names of the index entries (i.e., no target) for the PDF one. Attempting to figure out what would happen if the document were converted to v3 is what led to the error noted above. I don't think the EMAILCORE WG is likely to be finished with that document in the next month or two, but I would oppose actual publication of an RFC based on this document without a proper and complete TOC and Index. I hope these issues can be sorted out before they become a problem for the RPC. best, john From nobody Sun Oct 24 10:57:30 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40ABE3A0870 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OUZ9KxBvLJw7 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9373B3A0863 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1635098241; bh=tuM7dvM0njJkif8zffCvlMpRsRsL6NwR73Xyhc26O3Y=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A6KKGowvX1P4/iN2VYxfMLyZEgIuAspX82B02h0zSXn3PXSO3rfxRvM5jLhUUjEDk gXiNMP0vVxmeaRgn7GsZWBSuPeS6nOSJ2DhGIDZHBaYW0LlqccAXzqEj33HKqZTXo5 99HMVNvhLm4DhguE2NeCWKafkwvFekJghrnOH9t4= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([91.61.48.146]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mzyyk-1mrGFy3xvq-00x3XE for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:57:21 +0200 To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org References: From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:57:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:I0gSgUbUOy1pBzT/F3l8RraWsrtI836qwIQVkZI1cfzct0wK/W0 WzZi8rcZH7dxeuc+XqVaeGaX9t59aRtcwtS+CmkVlr8eBPGwoutFq/gZ2xMJ3QhBfcWF8+z u6hRk4rHWjtThNhoUzx57biPyBkNvKJ8w2W48RRIybFClg9/encodU8G8pZRAVctVhfRtVy palYtFy1zOgd88F/jg4iA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:MGp3k7f+Xlo=:QLIW7XO/KCVqvIUg+yQ1iO LSRRYGkBkiOUYduOzpEa3VMa5EMU+QvIsph9fQesVjGVan2yawH5UrQxUWc28A0DjI0tn3dim m6Gnbhgv9f9GLPPwaXwdyZwJyozBUsNZK3/iBDgj6WXxs51CTTr0vk1Z/e3Jw/S1av37c8WV2 isj5z2NfFKuNOCMt6PmHWqKanookfoiIi2UA58HARfWTQnpT1ZkFoy7YMvAGiYWVyyeh1EOxG 3OH8oWzFkWEdy08N6yERfvvqYnMNRVnyhlhL8b1FQafkgrZxZfScvyxKsa6GClf5Ho8F6Jl9y rrxJWHO2HWlF4nhIkHcQgTWAsQXcI9JrC/gIH9hMUS1bKNFuIiAHLlZwe8/03Htlp0uu/AuAg IkpHn9NqGRqtVFiVV6jIAacfxBCX295xdmy9HF/6CC9PXG6ybq5TEi83pxdJ/Z3iR2tra7+GZ FLP8uCnqN3l+jipjNxxyneuKaaxW5IDFSC/i9EW/PeUGI/UOO8ZCk/j9dsuE7ZWfDomcicJb9 E5ThW0ZZW9Kc+DpOF/I1LKg2oqF36rub3ghnv3Vjj8SRbPJQyQvS2NhmCWEgTiP3NsVA0xlPq anlLbcgk6zWrGXmC9P9GyBq3iDrkWd6e6JDOvOLlvRQxsslJaUEti/hZvU9L2ovRcSUQcETrz FcQysoOc55DTsQTYsnmFLScpNWX4flVpLW/JFTHamwsGSo2cO6N63yrOTO/QbBCpxXEEp97Fy HCiQPEBCJzmY0IMbmpcQlOBu5NNHnOkgtCmH93phmJyBM9BfDWdoLprfFgFFTi6/pWLBX3uoA TewBcoUXMZX65YC9sJ0I3WV0i+Ig5qigJUE2Np1uF2SrKeCAUPD8R/GKKYNsRsfib/JIVbrRG ujspybNNnAXzuxwcwQE5FjFiVo6jE9wdEvKgrtHSs5uhuwdilKtYqLoQGe6uk1BGJYs6JJzgB AwPOeR7fVTNjXSRsHQfbkjJCTFBJatDNvw3JdC6tMynYOJxG9hz1WE+TQ/oPLfCdiwQgFPqOl CUgeoGETekVvKYq3KkcjVBT4LKcT6bcm3pvrx6PUgFtcwc9G+43rzLwVLTgfIcVtdfykyW1h8 +PXg5AQe6ExkTs= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:57:29 -0000 Am 24.10.2021 um 19:44 schrieb John C Klensin: > Hi. > > The working version of rfc5321bis, > draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing > difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. > While it complies correctly with the online converter at > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ (which was used to create the > version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it to > v3 using > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 > produces a message indicating that the document is empty. I'll be happy to have a look if you can post the source file somewhere (or mail it to me directly). > This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still > ignoring "toc=3D'include'" attributes on fourth-level section > elements (e.g., sections with numbers like 4.1.1.1 do not appear > in the table of contents) a bug that was identified and reported > when RFC 5321 was published in October 2008. In addition, that There's is no "toc" attribute in V2. (in V2, the maxdepth for the Toc can be set using the "docdepth" processing instruction) > ... Best regards, Julian From nobody Sun Oct 24 11:54:08 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2683C3A0880; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 11:54:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7t_hFQEq907O; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521513A0882; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a10c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.161.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HcnLF2b43z2xKF; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:53:57 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:53:56 +0200 Cc: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 656794436.904685-778329e1d5edc45c6284b31b1a70a79c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 18:54:07 -0000 Hi John, if you want to continue editing that document in XML form, you will = minimize the pain by converting it from v2 to v3 as soon as possible and = never looking back. (There is also unrelated advice in this mail to stop using = tools.ietf.org.) xml2rfc --v2v3 oldxml.xml =E2=9E=94 oldxml.v2v3.xml This file is going to be your new source. If you don=E2=80=99t have xml2rfc (which is quite easy to install), = sending your file to somebody who has xml2rfc installed is the easiest = way to get the update. You only have to do this conversion once, = because you will be editing the v3 xml after that. > On 2021-10-24, at 19:44, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > Hi. >=20 > The working version of rfc5321bis, > draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing > difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. > While it complies correctly with the online converter at > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ We are in a transition away from this site; I would expect pain when = continuing to use it. > (which was used to create the > version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it to > v3 using > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 > produces a message indicating that the document is empty. This kind of pain. > This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still I would strongly advise to stop using that processor. Your RFC will be published as RFCXMLv3, with text and html/pdf = renderings of that XML format alongside, and it will have to stay in the = envelope of what is possible with these formats and tools. You are much = better off seeing early in development what that envelope is, than = getting a potentially destructive v3 conversion only at publishing time. > [=E2=80=A6] > produces page numbers in the index for the text > version and nothing but the names of the index entries (i.e., no > target) for the PDF one. =20 Consider yourself lucky that you still get pages and page numbers in the = TXT version as long as it is an Internet-Draft. Since RFC 8650, there = have been no page numbers in the TOC for final RFCs. > I don't think the EMAILCORE WG is likely to be finished with > that document in the next month or two, but I would oppose > actual publication of an RFC based on this document without a > proper and complete TOC and Index. =20 You will not get a "proper and complete" TOC and Index. (I think we do share a definition what a =E2=80=9Cproper and complete=E2=80= =9D TOC/Index is, but that is not what the RFCXML process that has been = in force since RFC 8650 will give you.) > I hope these issues can be > sorted out before they become a problem for the RPC. Maybe if the document is delayed enough to be published under RFCXMLv4 = rules=E2=80=A6 Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sun Oct 24 12:58:47 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EBC3A0825 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:58:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dpmGIvAiWmtR for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03AA23A085A for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30259 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2021 19:58:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=7630.6175baed.k2110; bh=BwekU2TR39n/a2S310m3vve+os6yHn6occSr9l1oosk=; b=ezKMaMvBUF3gEAGD391RUaBNybB+l+7AYkWCHY1bNdmy8YZfQuiPwb4Sk6jB4+BLDZkx/ZHH4HuxHLBv+Jk5MGoXUD6HBcn4W4LZbMuw78HarQRk92wQVRmMi/ZVjEcoBrBiU7ANTbK0cQorJXg3sfUJ4G0taTTUtUEQP8Nl54Udd4GPquvrc0JAxRrBYK7hoA7j+Xt620BYZK9vbMAMd9BJGjR7fjfdsYRnDI4lBl/TqYf3HS64J+ZZP1ZtJMnzEKDW3G7alYK3WVAxxfGRUbpILmEDXtaib6XO0P6LIKOhvwMd4Cf4uDckRNPJkMBaQa1lu0SgwtZr1tG3aZUC1w== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 24 Oct 2021 19:58:36 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2AE9B2D30218; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A6C2D301FA; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: 24 Oct 2021 15:58:35 -0400 Message-ID: <1aa513ba-aa82-d46f-c234-28c43277b141@iecc.com> From: "John R. Levine" To: "John C Klensin" , xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org Cc: tony@att.com, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:58:46 -0000 Can you send me the XML so I can take a look? We now have a programmer working on xml2rfc who is pretty good at fixing bugs. On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, John C Klensin wrote: > Hi. > > The working version of rfc5321bis, > draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing > difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. > While it complies correctly with the online converter at > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ (which was used to create the > version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it to > v3 using > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 > produces a message indicating that the document is empty. > > This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still > ignoring "toc='include'" attributes on fourth-level section > elements (e.g., sections with numbers like 4.1.1.1 do not appear > in the table of contents) a bug that was identified and reported > when RFC 5321 was published in October 2008. In addition, that > v2 processor produces page numbers in the index for the text > version and nothing but the names of the index entries (i.e., no > target) for the PDF one. Attempting to figure out what would > happen if the document were converted to v3 is what led to the > error noted above. > > I don't think the EMAILCORE WG is likely to be finished with > that document in the next month or two, but I would oppose > actual publication of an RFC based on this document without a > proper and complete TOC and Index. I hope these issues can be > sorted out before they become a problem for the RPC. > > best, > john > > Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Sun Oct 24 13:07:25 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BFF3A0959; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:07:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhaNTk9aNA9K; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C2FA3A0954; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1mejlv-000H2Q-Tu; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 16:07:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 16:07:05 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Carsten Bormann cc: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:07:24 -0000 Carsten, Noted but please look at this from the standpoint of an overworked author with little time to spend on the IETF and personal priorities that put getting this standards track document out rather than working on the technology. This is a long and complex document whose source still contains annotations from the development of RFC 2821. The source of some of its elements was in nroff or manually converted from plain text, and the source history in XML goes back to xml2rfc v1, with RFC 5321 being the result of a v1->v2 conversion. =20 I understand the difficulties associated with using the "tools" version(s), but, having just checked, the official recommendations still point to it. Moreover, it is much easier (for me, at least) to use the online/web version than a locally compiled one. I also note that points to the tools version so, if the preferred policy is to discourage its use, there is work to be done. =20 Perhaps things have changed, but, while I tried to get the current version of xml2rfc installed on my Windows machine some months ago, I ran into enough problems that I gave up (it is, IMO, irrelevant whether those problems were due to Windows, my lack or skill and/or patience, other applications that it messed up, or the code itself). I do have a copy running on one of my FreeBSD machines, but it is not convenient for me to use. =20 The last time I tried the conversion exercise -- probably in the IETF 110 timeframe-- it appeared to work but an attempt to compile the result didn't, leaving a need for human translation of semantics and then hand-editing a source document that, including comments, annotations, and tracking information, is just a hair short of 7000 lines long. As I said, long and complicated document. Based on tests run at the time on short files written natively in v3, v3 was not supporting features that the document needs [2] whether they could be faked by manually rewriting the source or not. I hope the conversion machinery, and the v3 compiler itself, have improved considerably since then, but don't really have time to run the tests. So, for better or worse, the pain-minimizing strategy for me and my personal pain threshold is to continue with v2. If the public v2 processor goes away, I'll probably use my own copy, figuring out whether making the Windows version work or moving files to and from the FreeBSD system is less painful. If I'm told that I cannot submit v2 files to the RFC Editor any more, I'll submit the ASCII, possibly manually edited to include some or all of the fourth-level TOC entries, to the RFC Editor and let the RPC cope (exactly the problem (for them) that I've been trying to avoid).=20 As to the TOC, I was not aware that RFC 8650 updated RFC 7322, nor that there was community consensus that the various renderings from authoritative v3 source were acceptable. Indeed, I recall a few statements that, since the source was authoritative, those renderings should be considered transitory. In any event, if we need to have that discussion, it should probably be moved to the main IETF discussion list and/or the RFC Future one. Finally, if the message you are trying to deliver is that, if I encounter further problems with v2 and/or the tools environment, I should not bother reporting them, just say so -- that would be fairly easy and painless for me to do. best, john [1] Follow the "Internet Standards" tab from to "Internet-Drafts", click on it to get to , and then note the "xml2rfc" link under "Submit an Internet-Draft". [2] That includes both the index (and I have been suggesting since long before the v3 project started that, consistent with the Style Guide, it should be producing references to section numbers not page numbers) and control over TOC nesting but also how some of the syntax productions were constructed. --On Sunday, October 24, 2021 20:53 +0200 Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi John, >=20 > if you want to continue editing that document in XML form, you > will minimize the pain by converting it from v2 to v3 as soon > as possible and never looking back. (There is also unrelated > advice in this mail to stop using tools.ietf.org.) >=20 > xml2rfc --v2v3 oldxml.xml >=20 > =E2=9E=94 oldxml.v2v3.xml >=20 > This file is going to be your new source. >=20 > If you don't have xml2rfc (which is quite easy to install), > sending your file to somebody who has xml2rfc installed is the > easiest way to get the update. You only have to do this > conversion once, because you will be editing the v3 xml after > that. >=20 >> On 2021-10-24, at 19:44, John C Klensin >> wrote: >>=20 >> Hi. >>=20 >> The working version of rfc5321bis, >> draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing >> difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. >> While it complies correctly with the online converter at >> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ >=20 > We are in a transition away from this site; I would expect > pain when continuing to use it. >=20 >> (which was used to create the >> version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it = to >> v3 using >> = https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 >> produces a message indicating that the document is empty. >=20 > This kind of pain. >=20 >> This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still >=20 > I would strongly advise to stop using that processor. >=20 > Your RFC will be published as RFCXMLv3, with text and html/pdf > renderings of that XML format alongside, and it will have to > stay in the envelope of what is possible with these formats > and tools. You are much better off seeing early in > development what that envelope is, than getting a potentially > destructive v3 conversion only at publishing time. >=20 >> [=E2=80=A6] >> produces page numbers in the index for the text >> version and nothing but the names of the index entries (i.e., >> no target) for the PDF one. =20 >=20 > Consider yourself lucky that you still get pages and page > numbers in the TXT version as long as it is an Internet-Draft. > Since RFC 8650, there have been no page numbers in the TOC for > final RFCs. >=20 >> I don't think the EMAILCORE WG is likely to be finished with >> that document in the next month or two, but I would oppose >> actual publication of an RFC based on this document without a >> proper and complete TOC and Index. =20 >=20 > You will not get a "proper and complete" TOC and Index. > (I think we do share a definition what a "proper and > complete" TOC/Index is, but that is not what the RFCXML > process that has been in force since RFC 8650 will give you.) >=20 >> I hope these issues can be >> sorted out before they become a problem for the RPC. >=20 > Maybe if the document is delayed enough to be published under > RFCXMLv4 rules=E2=80=A6 >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 From nobody Sun Oct 24 14:12:19 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89F23A0B1A; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:12:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTjdqDTFS_R6; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1943A3A0B4C; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a10c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.161.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HcrPg0Knmz30St; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:12:06 +0200 Cc: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 656802726.4842041-0905564be9c6278fe08e2530ed85f289 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:12:18 -0000 On 2021-10-24, at 22:07, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > Carsten, >=20 > Noted but please look at this from the standpoint of an > overworked author with little time to spend on the IETF and > personal priorities that put getting this standards track > document out rather than working on the technology. =20 Hi John, you can imagine that having started one widely used I-D/RFC authoring = tool, I do converse with people that fit this description, just now and = then :-) > This is a > long and complex document whose source still contains > annotations from the development of RFC 2821. The source of > some of its elements was in nroff or manually converted from > plain text, and the source history in XML goes back to xml2rfc > v1, with RFC 5321 being the result of a v1->v2 conversion. =20 Sure. You are doing the equivalent of editing a document that has RFC = 2022 codes to switch between different encodings in the middle of the = document, and mixes EUC-JP with KOI-8R with abandon. Please do convert to the equivalent of UTF-8=E2=80=A6 > I understand the difficulties associated with using the "tools" > version(s), but, having just checked, the official > recommendations still point to it. =20 By now, you should be aware how much you can buy for an =E2=80=9Cofficial = recommendation=E2=80=9D (I=E2=80=99m not even sure anyone more deeply = embedded in the IETF gears would agree to this term). > Moreover, it is much easier > (for me, at least) to use the online/web version than a locally > compiled one. =20 The first time, yes. The hundredth time, no. > I also note that > points > to the tools version so, if the preferred policy is to > discourage its use, there is work to be done. =20 Yes, there is. > Perhaps things have changed, but, while I tried to get the > current version of xml2rfc installed on my Windows machine some > months ago, I ran into enough problems that I gave up (it is, > IMO, irrelevant whether those problems were due to Windows, my > lack or skill and/or patience, other applications that it messed > up, or the code itself). I do have a copy running on one of my > FreeBSD machines, but it is not convenient for me to use. =20 We need to get better in solving problems of this kind. Clearly, we need a help desk for authors so people don=E2=80=99t waste = lots of time on dead ends. (And, yes, author-tools.ietf.org has fallbacks. =20 Just don=E2=80=99t use the older ones that are now partially mired in = cobwebs.) > The last time I tried the conversion exercise -- probably in the > IETF 110 timeframe-- it appeared to work but an attempt to > compile the result didn't, leaving a need for human translation > of semantics and then hand-editing a source document that, > including comments, annotations, and tracking information, is > just a hair short of 7000 lines long. As I said, long and > complicated document. Based on tests run at the time on short > files written natively in v3, v3 was not supporting features > that the document needs [2] whether they could be faked by > manually rewriting the source or not. I hope the conversion > machinery, and the v3 compiler itself, have improved > considerably since then, but don't really have time to run the > tests. The conversion was running very well at IETF110 time. You need to spend time with someone who can diagnose the problems you = were running into. This is not a bicycle you can fix yourself, this is a car that = occasionally needs a garage. > So, for better or worse, the pain-minimizing strategy for me and > my personal pain threshold is to continue with v2. =20 =E2=80=A6 and that is exactly what I=E2=80=99m trying to save you from. > If the > public v2 processor goes away, I'll probably use my own copy, > figuring out whether making the Windows version work or moving > files to and from the FreeBSD system is less painful. If I'm > told that I cannot submit v2 files to the RFC Editor any more, (You can; they=E2=80=99ll convert them to v3 as the first thing.) > I'll submit the ASCII, possibly manually edited to include some > or all of the fourth-level TOC entries, to the RFC Editor and > let the RPC cope (exactly the problem (for them) that I've been > trying to avoid).=20 That is indeed a sensible strategy (I know other people who still use = nroff). Just don=E2=80=99t be surprised when little of the thoughts that went = into your version of the document survive the translation into RFCXMLv3. > As to the TOC, I was not aware that RFC 8650 updated RFC 7322, It is the first RFC that was published under v3 rules (which you can see = from the fact that the TOC doesn=E2=80=99t have page numbers). > nor that there was community consensus that the various > renderings from authoritative v3 source were acceptable. Certainly not, but it=E2=80=99s what we have. > Indeed, I recall a few statements that, since the source was > authoritative, those renderings should be considered transitory. > In any event, if we need to have that discussion, it should > probably be moved to the main IETF discussion list and/or the > RFC Future one. Any such discussion should be on RFC-interest, please. xml2rfc just is a piece of software that tries to implement the rules = (and fortunately, fixed some of them due to the willpower of Henrik, = when he was still contributing a lot). > Finally, if the message you are trying to deliver is that, if I > encounter further problems with v2 and/or the tools environment, > I should not bother reporting them, just say so -- that would be > fairly easy and painless for me to do. Most people on xml2rfc-dev do know that there are more problems with = xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org than we can fix (the latter number is not = significantly different from zero, but sometimes it is possible). = Please do stop using it (except where the new tools aren=E2=80=99t in = place, such as for some kinds of reference bibxml). The part of the tools environment that is being maintained: Please do = report problems, preferably in a way that we can help. Problem: V2 is history. The tribulations that authors that start from v2 documents have to go = through are *not*. But the answer will not be to make v2 better, but to improve v3 and some = of the tools. > [1] Follow the "Internet Standards" tab from to > "Internet-Drafts", click on it to get to > , and then note the > "xml2rfc" link under "Submit an Internet-Draft=E2=80=9D. Yes. This *is* being worked on, but occasionally reminding people that = this doesn=E2=80=99t have to take a year is useful. > [2] That includes both the index (and I have been suggesting > since long before the v3 project started that, consistent with > the Style Guide, it should be producing references to section > numbers not page numbers) and control over TOC nesting but also > how some of the syntax productions were constructed. The v3 project has happened, and since late 2019 (RFC8650) we are now in = the process of counting he casualties and plastering over the wounds. = Again, if what you are trying to do doesn=E2=80=99t fit in the v3 = envelope, you want to know this now. So you can: (1) manage to do what none of us has managed to do very much: fix v3 (2) go ahead and create a useful document in the envelope possible by = v3. (Please don=E2=80=99t stop attempting (1), but please do recognize the = timelines for that are sometimes longer than those for updating = RFC821ter will be.) (In case you wonder: I=E2=80=99m just the messenger here, and my point = is that there are ways to waste a lot of time with the undesirable = aspects of the situation, which I=E2=80=99m occasionally trying to help = people out of.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > --On Sunday, October 24, 2021 20:53 +0200 Carsten Bormann > wrote: >=20 >> Hi John, >>=20 >> if you want to continue editing that document in XML form, you >> will minimize the pain by converting it from v2 to v3 as soon >> as possible and never looking back. (There is also unrelated >> advice in this mail to stop using tools.ietf.org.) >>=20 >> xml2rfc --v2v3 oldxml.xml >>=20 >> =E2=9E=94 oldxml.v2v3.xml >>=20 >> This file is going to be your new source. >>=20 >> If you don't have xml2rfc (which is quite easy to install), >> sending your file to somebody who has xml2rfc installed is the >> easiest way to get the update. You only have to do this >> conversion once, because you will be editing the v3 xml after >> that. >>=20 >>> On 2021-10-24, at 19:44, John C Klensin >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi. >>>=20 >>> The working version of rfc5321bis, >>> draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-05, is still causing >>> difficulties with xml2rfc v3 and the conversation machinery. >>> While it complies correctly with the online converter at >>> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ >>=20 >> We are in a transition away from this site; I would expect >> pain when continuing to use it. >>=20 >>> (which was used to create the >>> version posted a few minutes ago), an attempt to convert it to >>> v3 using >>> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/experimental.html#xml2rfcv2tov3 >>> produces a message indicating that the document is empty. >>=20 >> This kind of pain. >>=20 >>> This has been mentioned before, but the v2 processor is still >>=20 >> I would strongly advise to stop using that processor. >>=20 >> Your RFC will be published as RFCXMLv3, with text and html/pdf >> renderings of that XML format alongside, and it will have to >> stay in the envelope of what is possible with these formats >> and tools. You are much better off seeing early in >> development what that envelope is, than getting a potentially >> destructive v3 conversion only at publishing time. >>=20 >>> [=E2=80=A6] >>> produces page numbers in the index for the text >>> version and nothing but the names of the index entries (i.e., >>> no target) for the PDF one. =20 >>=20 >> Consider yourself lucky that you still get pages and page >> numbers in the TXT version as long as it is an Internet-Draft. >> Since RFC 8650, there have been no page numbers in the TOC for >> final RFCs. >>=20 >>> I don't think the EMAILCORE WG is likely to be finished with >>> that document in the next month or two, but I would oppose >>> actual publication of an RFC based on this document without a >>> proper and complete TOC and Index. =20 >>=20 >> You will not get a "proper and complete" TOC and Index. >> (I think we do share a definition what a "proper and >> complete" TOC/Index is, but that is not what the RFCXML >> process that has been in force since RFC 8650 will give you.) >>=20 >>> I hope these issues can be >>> sorted out before they become a problem for the RPC. >>=20 >> Maybe if the document is delayed enough to be published under >> RFCXMLv4 rules=E2=80=A6 >>=20 >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Sun Oct 24 23:30:21 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E383A079B for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:30:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09d2W99j3V-e for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206F83A0788 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:30:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1635143412; bh=4jhnhu6XFPDwpL87GUE9OFyKxXrul+r27YYbb1hEhm4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Y0CswNyqbofjGZzPCqJaiPelOFUFZDlTqKhOc+ljG0IR43207yvjCRsjJo5LM2VY6 VruZcEynLoi3xD2SnqBBMZMlctSaom1n9xwAZip6qkSKAgdAHNDzOHZI9VIvCi2mMm 9VZgh60fUXT89SuPiUEhu0m7Woq6Be9A5yAWVfVM= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([217.251.129.254]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mqs4f-1n1MCQ3go5-00mqw1 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:30:11 +0200 To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org References: From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <9af8644b-a2b1-ce7b-9773-9af84dd25d52@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:30:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:aruboJ6NmlzkgHftwy6o5UoT/7fOb3PxjhaWGLi3wh93w6CDvFI s4Udl0b1admn8u4K1f2Zk74oUFWApC52yI70SA/s7ubjlr1+MLeCiEUyWb6wklfNBTwsvlo /7ejfjK0+2ctimNjukq+YvTgRZaA6bCKP8NcIjKYv2je+JqAfSR5kh+3sT1c44p8pzpVfGv CJTEs+/NJPt/YEukvcl4Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Gy1jSGl1v5w=:p+Cljje+LOkYH25BgjCAHY 5ehv2k93ISDkSG7R8fW3xSdjaqNCCJUuUScViii7Fc+vMWESAcLUbMhiOpFX+YlNSnrOmPZFS VUg1ftoB5lPQa2RSKyJl2gNwHfnIWctRU8jWz4nB5t026hOWLsiADZOWsmlE9aH/+8jDb12YF nM9P3L66/XhhxzYCBPxu41icdnRCN7hkH7K8KA4hsRNC+pAskJJXilrz6RRx0hSevfHu7JXKM 7XNoPMq8P+x2gl+KexK/zMR2BP1mYXfXxwwXL3M9yISTuETmESoL3QDtj/EaGyh4C1oJzJpgu 0IAS0lIdQnjLuxOcjHA6T5ie9zEsKpOj2T/2E12Q7u8rkftBJbe7LX6COY41w4zR1Nb5fwV18 t8JgL5Xy2IyPbkgt5+vozbJRWtAeX2KN537ryx/u7oMWqkZnu/uAQMsDFE/5jtKw3Jo/Z2t5L 6DvtNUpc0TZKOKmHpjUi27ul0i71FdKhRrjeH15LNoX/BkOW89zk8ot0/Wtb7+Ydnfry5dS9m NT17b7ejXtiKD/6wkGU1f4N7syT37WHI/WK49I//SBB6U8E05vitfi3vST3s9an5Dfv++zNUR 1wKdzQMH6WT3kan4PWtnzc4zVKHZJXqF4Or9aZjLCyp9TRXRN3LaP5nE+/hfI9uuQag7WNQKc K87R/34Je6HsoVCuXBkD1OwHEHxyoRl8Ir74xvmSpVm2WqkmHHHORvQRyDhL+TMfBW8XWYIiY Mty2VXu4nYwMX9tjpfsAlSSDyCY2DtZ8YIGdY//zP81K6p/36BO22NUiMexjspxs7rz7oht0A 3qybcDvoJrEN23mfl8oQSno5mdzrppyU25iM3m1gFjFz9QbZojSB/NrL17GVX/CYjr7ldMVur 68aiJDXv58AuWX4uVUUI2zW7Y1egAlExqmOP9NWU0R5V93OBBCbd1+o3yFM3yMA4Kp0R2uUaK 5+/rKjyTGGWluUnHkSNeV5FKYyXlF4aX1QN8ub6Nz8AC2mrZ+BsRB33A0hdgYKU4sTMTehktr jNJyw2J0BXJ3l0srB1VvH5Zdo95hPLjXL+aXpFmbDHYSE2YNwqqOGJkvgZfAuaybOceDCWXTj 7SJCkuSIpOCk6c= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 06:30:20 -0000 First of all; see Carten's reply. Other than that: Am 24.10.2021 um 22:07 schrieb John C Klensin: > ... > Perhaps things have changed, but, while I tried to get the > current version of xml2rfc installed on my Windows machine some > months ago, I ran into enough problems that I gave up (it is, > IMO, irrelevant whether those problems were due to Windows, my > lack or skill and/or patience, other applications that it messed > up, or the code itself). I do have a copy running on one of my > FreeBSD machines, but it is not convenient for me to use. > ... I just happened to install xml2rfc on Windows last week. Thr process is: - install Python3 (I use the Cygwin version) - install pip - "pip install xml2rfc" (this required a few dev packages for Cygwin present: python, libxml2, libxslt) > ... > [2] That includes both the index (and I have been suggesting > since long before the v3 project started that, consistent with > the Style Guide, it should be producing references to section > numbers not page numbers) and control over TOC nesting but also > how some of the syntax productions were constructed. > ... 1) The index issue has been fixed a few months ago (). 2) ToC nesting depth can be controlled in both v2 and v3, but differently (v3 uses attributes on the root element, where v2 used processing instructions). Inclusion into the ToC can be conrolled in v3 using ). This works for me; if it does not work for you, it would be good to report that issue. 3) Regarding the final point: details, please. Best regards, Julian From nobody Sun Oct 24 23:48:23 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AF73A08BD for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=JB6igy1V; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=m+iwbRxN Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBsw0kFvVBvk for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31283A0882 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0BB3201C40 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:48:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=34FIpWUhI8CidTGwmfsfm7Bl30ASVh6 3j8qyi5c7vbs=; b=JB6igy1Vg2EoCmg5Jdm7tATWYE2OBJ6JyxENByjO/qV8LDU oGU8rqZ2CWKi0HkMnQXKTKoy09ZXwzR+QJYEBXbHRpcEEDFhcyKjlwbGuNZqLAc8 rElWDZXnFc8iMPMvbpjOqkciDVTM7tZuifMazwDDfouLN5hyxfSEkBAp6RN9lDSo eVyZIhKN13H9qHwVufa3KG1RO2Wpf8ugNyGCkwLWkKAC3BZq5E/D1zHGBkzpOChx nGhQ0dgSBsuMvycYaGD5CwPVaCKp/es3ZVJfpnokzLSKpRScrF6QOBCAirmvuTdJ Pk51vqMavp2hv2a+/dOCya5Au0opyQ5K9LDKycA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=34FIpW UhI8CidTGwmfsfm7Bl30ASVh63j8qyi5c7vbs=; b=m+iwbRxN42x+N1CriuqnKn 1BCbkChI1huXdbh/rp13wAvFfVlUA3czGIBpp302AFV54mHX+3GplGgF2d2rMSTl QsvPkRIRgV9QAqofUipW3kF97zLhYlG/BlSi02YjjwhPTXPmbunCYkiRxFc8A7sh 5OYiZr2sW8UPFNHWssHUc+6fKwPagFpStWWehwxwYrPOmMQUoSO0E85yAbYcGkvJ fRgrIqh+eDUJEaAL78YPCjBUdCkvXg/PKHAuKQdrmSThCmnzLYI77gImgsiDMBEs rxG/GT4AiSE+pyGY/EqSqTyLQ3C+iPmxMDj7vSPEFZKr5dXIplbDvCVkPs/dVykw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdefgedguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesth dtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepteeuueehudejjeehie eigfevveegudelgfdvvdffkeegfeevteeijeeigeeukeejnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmihgt rhhoshhofhhtrdgtohhmpdhphihthhhonhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9A6193C0C77; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:48:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1369-gd055fb5e7c-fm-20211018.002-gd055fb5e Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9af8644b-a2b1-ce7b-9773-9af84dd25d52@gmx.de> References: <9af8644b-a2b1-ce7b-9773-9af84dd25d52@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:47:54 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 06:48:21 -0000 On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 17:30, Julian Reschke wrote: > I just happened to install xml2rfc on Windows last week. Thr process is: > > - install Python3 (I use the Cygwin version) > - install pip > - "pip install xml2rfc" (this required a few dev packages for Cygwin > present: python, libxml2, libxslt) I would not recommend using Cygwin to anyone today. If you need a *nix environment, you can install WSL [1]. However, you can install python for windows[2] and get a windows version. From there you can open a command line prompt (win+R then type "cmd") and install xml2rfc with "pip install --user xml2rfc". I had to go looking for the xml2rfc.exe file that this creates, which was at "C:\Users\\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\Scripts" (I've an old Python version, yours might be different). Adding that directory to your path (win then type "path" and you should see a suggestion for "Edit the system environment variables"), might help. Of course, you can just find xml2rfc.exe and drag a .xml file onto the .exe to get a .txt file if you just want to see how it works. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about [2] https://www.python.org/getit/windows/ From nobody Mon Oct 25 00:23:37 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CD03A09E4 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYKMA1-UYhYj for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F8A3A09E1 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:23:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1635146606; bh=z99BIC3A8XSM/KVj22oXeWz0pzu40FKxHH+V/aP/roo=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=dgGSswdesdmYcPElgm5uSLKbojrBqQGAX/LT703Dj3P4Fyn8V+uwBrUNWg4/3+Z6Y BgO5ND/mCK9QcjGIReExIzxvjHICiTPpx47bxE1Dx38L8qU42yeiA5I9VE28XoTwYe rMN6ltXl2EGJxchwxbooPKkM8O+4YamW9zQuNVGk= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([217.251.129.254]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mxm3K-1mshaV3ooI-00zGWt for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:23:25 +0200 To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org References: <9af8644b-a2b1-ce7b-9773-9af84dd25d52@gmx.de> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:23:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:7YhEQyriMieTNb/SKtuUClBwaZrU/827Lc/doXxukbXCc1sbTag HsdFtU6JB4tO9vAQAwrYyiYKRYBggXjPPKbV4bzl3aM5VFPvtnAj/3L0UnVG4tP0nC24R3Y 2NAx8IRR2AB7PDXBnrjn0UrDgH61JvwH2XR891qBp8l/ZRNJxrQujDLHy5Ud0S14vNdCsJP fsGwDcCJvIO2sKSNxWO8g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:G7d3RGxqzpA=:P8omEoIzRJJ7oifQvJhz8A p4d2Fct1wD8DaKnLiQMd65zxYlFQitgLTWpc0dRXnLjXooQMDHrFG3grDbsbxThDShwLGT7KB kRKkTN1y1gBVUA6G3U6CMvrcMaCbIvWtHNFPOd4vb7pwdpRSoK5cR98/JabFO6rbECZj9j4xp Q1iIpZxwhAutdBf9CTP1J2EqHQYF1STYu4dyxG9p1yRfVZ9uf6AUFMl97iCaYJphkR2+ibL9H IFAxLcpCOI98ZN4zbE8f+zkeHmVKOi+eSO+gljWQPH/SCyfXON12fo94WsNHVD4G//HioKhvV fuxSsESBXIBKNTJuNp5p3xHHPCOlEay7DFSrgdQzu0zwhCg6ilU5904XlqIJf9Jo6BCj8PFiW /LszjYnozTL/ix3seqZ0GOABSnxytBL3kTVsTqdEWxFMRVFcW9W0Q8S5E4MAtpLGsL1R8Mq4X xQzPtCFzYpT24EQV9SwIWACzvVmZ9dW1yjxb/rBJxo5LUds/ntwl0QwfGXgaL/PeGtSAYlayk wtXSFgIEYz5ib40geJWs+9wRbI7aeaqvkLc4rj3shX/nzkh6+fPO0xeY2O8qT4+MifxT694UL PKGciKgFyVn8mrbHNNSJAP7QJfX50uZ31UY87eIUEFIQKpuCI7MJmsehJPaZTR/ptZGAX9Ggp fk0cDzE/TU34tKAc/OpnidEKMCLyVnpGkYllD/atUbygp6RkQRbLVkmiMwdU/8/zMVYVTRR1t gkHojHfEOVNZshRqrtGrFCVIIwkdxE7Vmbx/oPBxNGUmRr7HsTp0a2pYaXd9FddRLf0243LHw mZl7xC148Foj+R1aa4aE842ifksWbOQpDBbrsP9siodfCFOJkOpPCTmsUTo+XYLmnMW15Hkxo 6URsSWUWwr26ddmh7DehHqcBw1V6O8XVOprr3FIVouL/lP4BRO6z/baHh44T2A+XV9t0Ug8nQ JFtP1WMfCw4b/y1mKo4bZ1fytxHqhdHaIOEdjZ/ROjVwNaXyRwkItTi0OPxZMoEowa6zqMTuC 1NgqD7gc8GV8FwaSRkNa0Dwv141HCjiB0bCFcr/d09fJ50pHs231YHfV33T2bxrSbMP+XslVu 9OmICM0gsCBLxE= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc v2 to v3 conversions, TOC and index entries X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:23:35 -0000 Am 25.10.2021 um 08:47 schrieb Martin Thomson: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 17:30, Julian Reschke wrote: >> I just happened to install xml2rfc on Windows last week. Thr process is= : >> >> - install Python3 (I use the Cygwin version) >> - install pip >> - "pip install xml2rfc" (this required a few dev packages for Cygwin >> present: python, libxml2, libxslt) > > I would not recommend using Cygwin to anyone today. If you need a *nix = environment, you can install WSL [1]. I'm using that as well, but did not want to complicate things more :-). > ... Best regards, Julian From nobody Fri Oct 29 10:57:32 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EF13A1531; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:57:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QjjytOxzeoXI; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F003A152F; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c162ff772b9a ([47.186.34.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 19THvK3L010352 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:57:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1635530240; bh=q3KSVBaZqAUyzbcR+yqG0xhWlBAnj0UMlpYw6jlO4Nc=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date; b=q58dT8ntWFTQn+UQTlbXqCPG1A/Evmm66yGHnZ/TlW67KwifWTOejig6qyosmoHvX vIeHKPUYWnPCY6O+YYY8XJErS/wkXA1wFk0qPz1SjHyx47cWnFtDbN/4zMUc8cMnKp 2P/OUJ9lXb6vhTpo9c4YE2D2wQoFIV5HA1FGgPZ0= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.34.206] claimed to be c162ff772b9a Received: from rjsparks by c162ff772b9a with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mgW7u-0000C7-U4; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:57:14 +0000 From: rjsparks@nostrum.com To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:57:14 +0000 Archived-At: Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v3.11.0 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:57:31 -0000 Hi, This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release, v3.11.0, generated when running the mkrelease script. Release notes: xml2rfc (3.11.0) ietf; urgency=high * Merged in [4061] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Fixes a case where an infinite loop could occur in text rendering. Fixes #684. * Merged in [4059] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Updates TPL 5 boilerplate text from Simplified to Revised. Fixes #676. * Merged in [4058] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Reverts back Apple M1 specific changes from docker/run. xml2rfc (3.10.0) ietf; urgency=low * Merged in [4043] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Fixes Python compatibility issues in bin/uglifycall. * Merged in [4042] and [4045] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Updates docker/run command to support Apple M1. Fixes #675. * Merged in [4041] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Adds missing line joiner settings for
    and
      . Fixes #673. * Merged in [4040] from jennifer@painless-security.com: Fix Makefile rule precedence and repair canonical.xml test to work with yestest. Fixes #671. * Merged in [4037] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Changes RFC regression test to be a seperate test. * Merged in [4036] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Adds RFC regression tests. Fixes #667. * Merged in [4016] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Fix for bad PDF breaks. * pin weasyprint<53 for tox tests * Merged in [4020] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Sort class values in HTML output. Fixes #553. * Merged in [4018] and [4019] from jennifer@painless-security.com: Keep pns from incoming xml when present; handle case that an author does not have an after-next element. Fixes #664. * Merged in [4012] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Remove quotes from the text rendering of . Fixes #600 and #647. * Merged in [4011] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Fix info block runoff issue in PDFs. Fixes #606. * Merged in [4010] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Remove unicode entity replacement step from v2v3 conversion. Fixes #641. * Merged in [4009] from krathnayake@ietf.org: Cache XML XInclude files with referencegroup. Fixes #653. -- Robert Sparks 21 Sep 2021 18:10:48 +0000 The preferred way to install xml2rfc is by doing 'pip install xml2rfc', and 'pip install --upgrade xml2rfc' to upgrade. If there are system- installed python modules which pip will not upgrade, you may have to use 'pip install --upgrade --no-deps xml2rfc' and install dependencies manually. The new version is also available through SVN checkout, with 'svn checkout https://svn.ietf.org/svn/tools/xml2rfc/tags/cli/3.11.0' Documentation for this release is built-in, and also available at: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc-3.11.0.html Regards, Robert Sparks (via the mkrelease script) From nobody Fri Oct 29 11:06:36 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C763A150A; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id csUVfTC4ytOg; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4443A1531; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c162ff772b9a ([47.186.34.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 19TI6TRv021917 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:06:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1635530790; bh=alaFXTopE8auNRkriwzV437d3Rgz8+OXO/b3xL/At7M=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date; b=UuA7j2gfJKxCDD5tB+mat3ThazmVlZi7miHyk4+cJvp/DtFCuVcZVmzoNjAYGv5Ko kQow65xYUcG2IfywV3Zas+RNO1b5OBGhlU32R1u0k0ddT6/o4i9wZYRcXMDOEcBGVr AUtuoDlIX6wD+DJAXEGdhCYJ8Z/Xeufu5On5TAag= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.34.206] claimed to be c162ff772b9a Received: from rjsparks by c162ff772b9a with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mgWGm-0000Fr-MX; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:06:24 +0000 From: rjsparks@nostrum.com To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:06:24 +0000 Archived-At: Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v3.11.1 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:06:35 -0000 Hi, This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release, v3.11.1, generated when running the mkrelease script. Release notes: xml2rfc (3.11.1) ietf; urgency=high * Cosmetic release to address changelog formatting -- Robert Sparks 29 Oct 2021 17:55:18 +0000 The preferred way to install xml2rfc is by doing 'pip install xml2rfc', and 'pip install --upgrade xml2rfc' to upgrade. If there are system- installed python modules which pip will not upgrade, you may have to use 'pip install --upgrade --no-deps xml2rfc' and install dependencies manually. The new version is also available through SVN checkout, with 'svn checkout https://svn.ietf.org/svn/tools/xml2rfc/tags/cli/3.11.1' Documentation for this release is built-in, and also available at: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc-3.11.1.html Regards, Robert Sparks (via the mkrelease script)