Subject: Drafts getting bounced with little explanation

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0700

Just a heads-up: drafts that are not in perfect format are being 
bounced with the message:

According to the new procedure your I-D has to include some statements.
Please check the 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg00244.html
for more details.

The two rejections that I have seen did not say what was missing.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:33:04 -0700

Paul-

Have you sent a note to ietf-action requesting a fix?

--aaron

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:59:21 -0700 (PDT)

Yes.  I had to compare my (bounced) draft to the ones that were getting
through and then submit new boilerplate.   I still don't know what exactly
was wrong, but they did get through after I copied successful boilerplate.

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:27:53 +0100

This is frustrating, and I note that the ones that are not bounced do 
not have consistent heading and ordering either.... :-)

Waiting 1-2 days to receive this confusing message is certainly not 
encouraging to new authors/editors.

Gorry Fairhurst

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:44:32 +0200

I've also run into one instance of a draft returned without explanatory
details, and it's quite frustrating.

One possible help in finding out what the trouble is with a particular
document could be to use the idnits tool I've written 
 ( http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits ) - that should report any
ID-checklist violation that doesn't require human judgement.  

But it would be nicer and easier if the secretariat would just indicate
why it is bouncing a document...

	Henrik

---

From: "Acee Lindem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:57:38 -0400

Hi Henrik,
Can you (or somebody) point me to a draft that passes all the
nits? I tried a draft that "thought" conformed to 3667/3668 yet
the tools says I'm using RFC 2026 boilerplate.
Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:12:00 +0200

Hi Acee,

    This one passes, for instance:

http://ietf.levkowetz.com/drafts/eap/rfc2284bis/draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-10.e.txt

For more information from the idnits tool, you can run it with
the --verbose option.

	Henrik

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:34:36 +0100

I *THINK* the issue is that you have to pick up the patched IPR boilerplate *AND* place it
as the first paragraph in the "Status of this Memo" section.

Of course, this neither conforms to 3667/8 nor to the email that we are supposed to
follow.

I have had several email exchanges asking (pleading) to be told what is wrong, and have
had no better answer than "you are not conformant". Several authors in my WG are
scrambling to meet the deadlines and are going frantic.

Can anyone give a good reason why it is not possible to point out how a draft is failing?
Are we playing class-room cricket? Are we trying to slow down the IETF process?

Adrian

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:57:41 +0100

> The two rejections that I have seen did not say what was missing.

A related problem I'm seeing is that drafts are being bounced, but only  
to the authors. It would be helpful if the secretariat would include  
everyone cc'd on the original draft submission when bouncing a draft,  
so the chairs know what's going on...

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:03:53 -0400

On Jul 13, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

>
> A related problem I'm seeing is that drafts are being bounced, but 
> only to the authors. It would be helpful if the secretariat would 
> include everyone cc'd on the original draft submission when bouncing a 
> draft, so the chairs know what's going on...
>

Hi Colin-

A fine suggestion.  Of course it won't be implemented unless a note is 
sent to [email-masked]....  :)

--aaron

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:41:29 +0100

On 13 Jul 2004, at 22:03, Aaron Falk wrote:
>> include everyone cc'd on the original draft submission when bouncing 
>> a draft, so the chairs know what's going on...
>
> Hi Colin-
>

Done.

Cheers,
Colin