Subject: [Tools-discuss] File name truncation?

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:29:57 -0500

When I go to 
"http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?topmenu=true&doc=draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe" 
and then click on "tracker", it gives me an error. The problem seems to 
be that it is trying to open 
"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-roach-sip-http-subscr/" instead 
of "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe/".

Is there some kind of very small limit on file names in the tools database?

/a

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:10:33 +0200

Hi Adam,

> Is there some kind of very small limit on file names in the tools database?

No, you're just using the raw tool without providing quite the expected input
format.  That particular invocation expects the doc parameter to contain the
revision number.

If you instead use the path

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe

you'll get a better result, as that interface goes to some length to produce
correct parameters to provide to the rfcmarkup tool which does the actual
conversion.  The pages are also cached in order to load the servers less and
produce results faster (but in some cases (maybe yours?) the caching is
undesirable, of course).  Is there any particular reason why you prefer to use
the direct /rfcmarkup? invocation?  If this has started to get substantial use,
I should understand why, and see if something needs to be changed in order to
support the use better.

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:21:14 -0500

> I should understand why, and see if something needs to be changed in order to

Heh. I didn't actually select one over the other -- I'm just lazy enough 
that I don't bother digging through my bookmarks to get draft status. 
Instead, I type some substantial portion of the draft name in to Google, 
and click on the first link that comes up from tools.ietf.org. In this 
case, I landed on the rfcmarkup page instead of the cached page. I don't 
know how that particular link got picked up by Google...

If this starts to see heavy traffic, you might do a check in that script 
to see whether the Referer is one of the major search engines, and 
redirect to the cached version if it is.

/a

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:09:59 +0200

>   On 10/19/10 09:10, Oct 19, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
...

   Is there any particular reason why you prefer to use
> redirect to the cached version if it is.

Ah.  I see.  I think I'll just disallow /rfcmarkup? in robots.txt, then;
that might just work, too, in keeping those links from coming too near the
top.

Best,

	Henrik