Paul is correct. I-D Submission in quite intentionally less strict.
I have been out of the office and away from email for the last week,
and as a result, I have not fully caught up on this thread. However,
there are some things that seem to need clarification.
This web page provides guidelines for I-D submission. While the vast
majority of the information in it is correct, It needs to be
updated. The author has just been too busy to do the update.
This web page provides the things that are checked by the IDnits tool
which is used as part of the online submission checking.
I have personally prepared an I-D and checked it with the IDnits
running on tools.ietf.org an then had it rejected by the online
submission tool. I have asked the Secretariat to work with Henrik to
figure out what is wrong. I suspect others have been caught in the
same situation. Perhaps that was resolved in the week while I was
away. I'll be checking after I clear my email backlog. The answer
might be in it...
There is no intention that xml2rfc be the only way to produce an I-D
that is acceptable to the online submission tool. xml2rfc seems to
have a higher success rate, and we are working to improve the online
submission tool so that all of the various tools have high success rates.
At 06:01 PM 6/29/2009, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The original thread is about Internet Draft submission, not RFC
publication format. The two topics are completely disjoint in the
Ietf mailing list