<?rfc private="yes"?> no longer seems to work

[cabo]

Describe the issue

Even with <?rfc private="yes"?>, xml2rfc now seems to include Internet-Draft boilerplate.

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[cabo]

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.

[JayDaley]

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?)

[cabo]

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).