Subject: Internet Draft Requirements

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:59:07 +0100

Loomis, Rip wrote:

>The subject draft, containing our initial attempt at collecting
>requirements for signed proofs of nonexistence, was submitted
>to the RFC Editor queue last week.  Since it still hasn't shown
>up in the active queue on rfc-editor.org, here are links to the
>initial version in text
> 
>
I was also suprised that the draft didn't appear yet but Rip message 
triggered me to check the draft
for which he posted the (partly broken) links.

The text does not start the mandatory patent disclosure certification 
language.

Since more people were and will be bitten by forgetting this here 
follows a small reminder.

If drafts do not follow a basic set of requirements than they will be 
bounced at submission.
The requirements are listed at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

If you use the latest available version of XML2RFC tool for authoring 
the guidlines on the "standard"
boilerplates are automatically satisfied (http://xml.resource.org). 
Personally I recomend this tool.

It would of course be cool if all "ID-nits" from 
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html would be sattisfied
too. But that can be done at a later stage in the process. The IDnits 
checker 
(http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/) is a good tool to check the 
IDnits that do not rely on human
intelligence.

Please remember this, being hit by this at cutt-off date would be a 
waste of time.

-- Olaf
(PS; Ben, Rip, I suggest you add the needed diclaimers and without any 
"content" change resubmit the draft)

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:13:49 +0100

> If drafts do not follow a basic set of requirements than they will be 

I saw no bounce, though!

> Personally I recomend this tool.

I did use the tool, but perhaps not the latest version.

> "content" change resubmit the draft)

I will do so shortly.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
ApacheCon! 13-17 November! http://www.apachecon.com/

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:31:46 +0100

Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
> checker (http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/) is a good tool to 
> check the IDnits that do not rely on human
> intelligence.
> 

I updated xml2rfc to the current version (1.25), and the text generated 
was identical, apart from spacing and dates.

In fact the error turns out to be this line:

<rfc category='info' ipr='full3667'>

which used to say:

<rfc category='info' ipr='full2026'>

for some reason.

I am now submitting the revised version.

Cheers,

Ben.

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:48:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Loomis, Rip wrote:

> And as a reminder, we fully expect that some of the requirements
> in this current document may be unrealistic, may conflict with
> other requirements, or may in fact be "desire-ments" without a
> solid basis.  Once there is at least rough consensus on the maximally
> inclusive list, then the WG can work on boiling down to a cohesive
> set of prioritized requirements.

Thank you for putting this together, gentlemen.

Given the potential for conflicting requirements, I'd find it useful
to see what sets of requirements go together.  We might find that
there are multiple disjoint sets of users with confliciting
requirements, but that we can design a solution that works for each
set (or at least some of the sets).  Does your raw source material
give you enough data to start constructing that matrix?

I also remember someone suggesting (during the DNSEXT meeting at IETF
60?) a requirement that zones not be countable, even if the names
themselves are hashed.  Have any of your sources mentioned such a
requirement?

-- Sam

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:47:11 +0100

> give you enough data to start constructing that matrix?

Probably. I'll take a look. I doubt its possible to finish, but I'm sure 
starting is possible.

> themselves are hashed.  Have any of your sources mentioned such a

Section 7.

Cheers,

Ben.