Several open-source compilers exist. It would not be hard to a) make
a library of modules from RFCs (to deal with IMPORTS), b) make a
cgi-bin compiler. It's not what I do on a daily basis, but if you put
together a cgi-bin where all I need to provide is a command to run on
a file and output warni
The point w.r.t. MIB module checking was that
during editing phase, even a small typo in a
double quote or some such would render the MIB
module invalid/non-compilable (i.e. invalid SYNTAX).
So if RPC does not touch the text at all, then there
is no need for them to check. But if they DO touch
it
In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1
modules.
Russ
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
>
>> 2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
>> MIB-related d
Hi Ray,
I have one question regarding 3:
> 3.Accountability
> The RPC is responsible to the RSE as regards to RFC Series consistency.
This is the entirety of a section called "accountability". Can this be
clarified? What about other than RFC Series consistency? What is
example of how this st
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> 2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
> MIB-related details)" be updated to reflect "MIBs". Although MIB
> modules are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does not check all
> ASN.1, we only check MIBs.
Hi,
A few nits regrading MIB module checking...
On 8/16/13 4:16 PM, "Sandy Ginoza" wrote:
>
>
>
>2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
>MIB-related details)" be updated to reflect "MIBs". Although MIB modules
>are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does
:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray
> Pelletier
> Sent: 16 August 2013 19:48
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org;
i...@iab.org;
> i...@ietf.org; IETF Announcement List
> Subject: Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Produc
Hi Sandy,
I'm not sure how or if it plays into the SoW but your diagram
shows errata handling in the publisher part.
Many people find the current errata process not that great, but
we've collectively not gotten around to figuring out something
better.
I think the possible consequence is that it
Greetings,
Since the publication of RFC 5620, the RFC Editor has been working to implement
the RPC and Publisher split. Based on our attempts to create two separable
entities per RFC 5620 and later RFC 6635, our understanding of the motivations
for splitting the RPC and Publisher into distinct
All;
Are there any more comments on the SOWs?
This item will be on the IAOC agenda for its call on 22 August.
Ray
On Aug 12, 2013, at 5:54 PM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> The RFC Series Editor (RSE) is proposing changes to the Statements of Work
> (SOW) for the RFC
> Production Cen
>I wonder, though, if this document might have contained change bars that
>nobody but people who use MS
>Word would see. Opening the document up in Preview on the Mac, it's just
>four or five pages of
>text, with no way to evaluate what changed.
It looks fine in OpenOffice. Really.
I agree w
Riccardo
All of the DOC files are in the process of being replaced with PDF files.
I apologize for the inconvenience and angst this caused.
Ray
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> Is this the document with the proposed SOW?
>
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Propo
On Aug 13, 2013, at 9:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
> There's no great way
> to send around a redlined document and I'd say that Word formats are
> currently the least bad.
rfcdiff does really nicely, actually.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
>>
>>I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
>>(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
>>saying that you should not use the Office s
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
>
>I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
>(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
>saying that you should not use the Office suite to write it, but you
>could convert it to PDF (better
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I agree in principle (MS document formats are not a suitable document
> exchange format for an open standards body) but in truth, it's been
> awhile since Open Office hasn't been able to read .doc files correctly.
I wonder, though, if this docum
On 8/12/13 11:36 PM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> Anyway, I use Linux, so I guess I will not be able to give my input about it.
I agree in principle (MS document formats are not a suitable document
exchange format for an open standards body) but in truth, it's been
awhile since Open Office hasn't
Is this the document with the proposed SOW?
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
saying that you should not use the Office suite to write it,
The RFC Series Editor (RSE) is proposing changes to the Statements of Work
(SOW) for the RFC
Production Center (RPC) and the RFC Publisher. The IAOC wants to receive
community input prior to
negotiating the proposed changes with the contractor. Community input will be
discussed with the RSE
19 matches
Mail list logo
