On 2011-02-23 11:09, Julian Reschke wrote:
...
I just realized that I have an archive of XML versions of RFCs in AUTH48
state; so I *can* report the percentage of XML versions since ~RFC5000.
Note that these may be inaccurate (for instance, not all RFC numbers get
assigned, right?); it just
Colleagues,
With respectful apologies to both the posters I'm quoting, I'm going
to reframe this conversation slightly, in hopes of pointing out what I
think we're really talking about, or should be.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:59:02PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2011-02-24 17:38 Andrew
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:59:23PM -0500, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I was impressed with just how steady that increase appears to be over a
reasonably extended period of time, as well as its seeming to be around
70%, not 50%, now.
Pretty serious 'market' domination...
I submit that this is a
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sullivan [a...@shinkuro.com]
how difficult it is to get things by idnits.
___
I would expect that the idnits rules change only very
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:18:10AM -0500, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
I would expect that the idnits rules change only very slowly. What is the
real story on that?
They seem to change more quickly than people realise. Also, of
course, a whole bunch of changes can go by between a given
Hi Andrew,
On 2011-02-24 16:28 Andrew Sullivan said:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:18:10AM -0500, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
I would expect that the idnits rules change only very slowly. What is the
real story on that?
They seem to change more quickly than people realise. Also, of
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henrik
Levkowetz [hen...@levkowetz.com]
Only errors will prevent an automatic draft submission from going through;
ignore the warnings and comments to your heart's content for that purpose.
Are you saying that one can order
On 24 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henrik
Levkowetz [hen...@levkowetz.com]
Only errors will prevent an automatic draft submission from going through;
ignore the warnings and comments to your heart's
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the complaints against the requirements of
1id-guidelines.txt
On 2011-02-24 17:25 Worley, Dale R (Dale) said:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henrik
Levkowetz [hen...@levkowetz.com]
Only errors will prevent an automatic draft submission from going through;
ignore the warnings and comments to your heart's content for
Hi Andrew,
On 2011-02-24 17:38 Andrew Sullivan said:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the
From: Henrik Levkowetz [hen...@levkowetz.com]
This is at the top of the idnits output in submission checking mode:
Showing Errors (**), Warnings (==), and Comments (--).
Errors MUST be fixed before draft submission.
Are people complaining about the errors or the warnings?
It would
--On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:42 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:59:23PM -0500, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I was impressed with just how steady that increase appears to
be over a reasonably extended period of time, as well as
its seeming to be
On 2011-02-25 05:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the complaints
On 2/24/11 7:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:18:10AM -0500, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
I would expect that the idnits rules change only very slowly. What is the real
story on that?
They seem to change more quickly than people realise. Also, of
course, a whole
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
[paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
So, I suspect that the large percentage of the non-00 drafts getting
kicked back are due to the IETF Trust requirements changing over
time. We can argue (and have argued!) about all that,
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Ginoza
[sgin...@amsl.com]
Julian's numbers are good approximations; 50-60% of docs have XML source
files.
Rising fairly steadily, and approaching 70% in the most recent RFCs.
Dale
On 2/23/2011 12:29 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Rising fairly steadily, and approaching 70% in the most recent RFCs.
Exactly.
I was impressed with just how steady that increase appears to be over a
reasonably extended period of time, as well as its seeming to be around 70%, not
50%,
18 matches
Mail list logo
