Format issues in rfc6265bis

[martinthomson]

The following warnings all need looking into:

draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1972): Warning: Unused reference: There seems to be no reference to [RFC1034] in the document
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1987): Warning: Unused reference: There seems to be no reference to [RFC1123] in the document
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1077): Warning: Artwork too wide, reducing indentation from 3 to 1
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1081): Warning: Artwork too wide, reducing indentation from 3 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1053): Warning: Section too wide, reducing indentation from 0 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1012): Warning: Section too wide, reducing indentation from 0 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(835): Warning: Section too wide, reducing indentation from 0 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(561): Warning: Section too wide, reducing indentation from 0 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(68): Warning: Middle too wide, reducing indentation from 0 to 0
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(583): Warning: Too long line found (L792), 1 characters longer than 72 characters:
      non-delimiter   = %x00-08 / %x0A-1F / DIGIT / ":" / ALPHA / %x7F-FF
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1081): Warning: Too long line found (L1381), 3 characters longer than 72 characters:
   1.  The HTTP request associated with the retrieval uses a "safe" method.
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.xml(1081): Warning: Too long line found (L1384), 4 characters longer than 72 characters:
       elapsed since the cookie's creation-time is at most a duration of the

Some of these appear to just be problems in diagrams, but there are broken references and some input formatting issues.

[sbingler]

Working on this now and I've cleaned up everything except for the unused reference warnings.

RFC1034 and RFC1123 do appear to be referenced in the Syntax section

domain-value      = <subdomain>
                      ; defined in [RFC1034], Section 3.5, as
                      ; enhanced by [RFC1123], Section 2.1

However it looks like the tool doing the checks doesn't recognize references within artwork. If I add {{RFC1034}} {{RFC1123}} elsewhere the warnings aren't emitted. Adding that line within the artwork has no effect.

@martinthomson Do you know what tool is performing this check? This seems like it could be a bug.

[martinthomson]

That is xml2rfc complaining.

The problem is that text in artworks is not references. It's just text in brackets. You should add text somewhere that says something like:

This document uses ABNF rules from {{!RFC1034}}, {{!RFC1123}}, and ...

Otherwise, you haven't created a reference.