Open cabo opened 2 years ago
I see that this is now done by setting <rfc ipr="none"
-- not sure that this is the right way to do this (RFC 7991 has different text about that), but it seems to work with v3.
https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#ipr claims this is done with an empty string, which is not accepted.
I see that this is now done by setting
<rfc ipr="none"
-- not sure that this is the right way to do this (RFC 7991 has different text about that), but it seems to work with v3. https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#ipr claims this is done with an empty string, which is not accepted.
Is this a problem with authors.ietf.org or a bug in xml2rfc? (i.e. should I fix authors.ietf.org?)
Well, first I'd like to confirm that ipr="none" is the stable replacement for <?rfc private="yes"?>
, which is a question about xml2rfc as this is not really part of the standard RFCXML vocabulary.
The result of this confirmation then should be reflected in the documentation (including authors.ietf.org).
Describe the issue
Even with
<?rfc private="yes"?>
, xml2rfc now seems to include Internet-Draft boilerplate.Code of Conduct