Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] docName?

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 07:03:48 +0100

[ Quoting <[email-masked]> in "Re: [xml2rfc-dev] docName?..." ]
>On 08.04.2019 23:48, Miek Gieben wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Compiling an xml doc with v3, gives this error:
>>
>>Parsing file 8341.xml
>>8341.xml(3): Warning: Expected a 'docName' attribute in the <rfc/>
>>element, but found none.
>>
>>Is docName now back ?
>
>Actually is was never gone in xml2rfc as per
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-08#section-3.1.21.5>.
>
>Note that I agree with Henrik's summary, but it sure would be cool if we
>had a coherent description of what v3-as-accepted-by-xml2rfc is.

So, what's the state of this? XML not having a docName are rejected: https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/issues/76
while the parser only emit a warning...

I know need to make code changes for something that is actually not described 
anywhere, but seems mandatory.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 12:17:07 +0200

Hi Miek,

> while the parser only emit a warning...

I'd like to know the rejection message from the datatracker.  There are
any number of possible rejection reasons that have nothing to do with
docName, even if the description in #76 seems to indicate that it's related.

I may be able to fish the rejection reason out if I know the draft name and
submission date.  Could you provide that?

I'll check the code to see if the warning should be an error, but would really
like to see the rejection message to understand what's up.

> anywhere, but seems mandatory.

You can expect that docName will continue to be needed.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 07:54:25 +0100

[ Quoting <[email-masked]> in "Re: [xml2rfc-dev] docName?..." ]
>submission date.  Could you provide that?

I've asked on the issue. Thanks!

>You can expect that docName will continue to be needed.

Ok, is this always seriesInfo.value ? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.47.6
Esp considering this changes from filename for an I-D to a number when the 
document becomes an RFC? 

Also because there is a number attribute 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.7), which I added eons ago 
because xml2rfc complained; maybe that can be removed now (because its 
deprecated) ?

/Miek

--
Miek Gieben

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 07:58:44 +0100

code to deal with the number attribue: 
https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/blob/master/render/xml/title.go#L50

Have to re-check to see if that is still true.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 09:22:43 +0200

On 10.05.2019 08:54, Miek Gieben wrote:
> Ok, is this always seriesInfo.value ?
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.47.6
> Esp considering this changes from filename for an I-D to a number when
> the document becomes an RFC?
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.7), which I added eons
> ago because xml2rfc complained; maybe that can be removed now (because
> its deprecated) ?
> ...

I *believe* for now it is safest to just do what RFC *7749* says wrt
document metadata.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 12:06:59 +0200

Hi Miek,

>> the document becomes an RFC?

No, the docName should not change to a number; the docName is used to add
metadata about the draft from which an RFC is derived when writing a v3
RFC in html format, and to insert the draft name when writing draft output.

>> ago because xml2rfc complained; maybe that can be removed now (because

No, as Julian indicates, follow 7749 with respect to metadata.  The number
still indicates which RFC number is to be generated.

	Henrik

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 13:02:44 +0100

>still indicates which RFC number is to be generated.

Ok, thanks for the info; I'll make those changes.

One more question if you have docName will xml2rfc; will this work as well:

Warning: Expected a <link> with rel='prev' providing the datatracker url for the origin draft.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 14:20:06 +0200

> Warning: Expected a <link> with rel='prev' providing the datatracker url

FWIW, that's a requirement that doesn't make any sense at all - I would
ignore the warning for now.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:03:36 +0200

Hi Miek,

> Warning: Expected a <link> with rel='prev' providing the datatracker url for the origin draft.

The v2v3 converter inserts a <link> with rel='prev' if docName is given;
for v3 xml you should set that.  I think, however, that this warning should
more correctly be a note or comment.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:09:48 +0200

> more correctly be a note or comment.

No, I'm wrong.  It should be at least a warning, possibly an error.  This is
covered in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7998#section-5.6.3 .  This is
emitted only in RFC production mode.

	Henrik

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:24:25 +0200

> emitted only in RFC production mode.

...but see
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool-bis/issues/3>.