From nobody Tue Jan 5 09:03:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062C01ACDBD for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:03:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j03sxtDalerW for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8301AC7E8 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:03:24 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,525,1444719600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="92175086" Received: from hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.40]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2016 08:58:24 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:58:23 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::2887:6d2e:a26f:d51e%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:58:23 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: rfcmarkup bug Thread-Index: AQHRR9pJNzWYbJFt2kS+Ts4wUbFdqg== Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:58:23 +0000 Message-ID: <3F2920FA-8F59-4C60-87F1-3ECC14DCE635@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.120.60.36] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E33D7ED9-33D7-46FD-97CF-4C59865A9F20"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: [Tools-discuss] rfcmarkup bug X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:03:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E33D7ED9-33D7-46FD-97CF-4C59865A9F20 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, there seems to be a bug in rfcmarkup. For = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed/, the plain = text version correctly includes RFC1078 in the list of documents that = are obsoleted. But RFC1078 is not listed in either the HTML rendering, or the PDF = rendering. Lars --Apple-Mail=_E33D7ED9-33D7-46FD-97CF-4C59865A9F20 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWi/YvAAoJEFS1wwm/cMFXw+EQAM0OqCnPYX0U6alVaMOSGcud BY7Fv1FFeEQ3hR39Wi2e86W6lQgrAl6dl5h/ZWdGLX8hjU6O09wOSo8dfkp+fPtz Iu2hbYAmCIZQjfUejm8O3TEJol/2I3soqV42hPUKlSXRpSmy/tMYK/vVfMS1GGCN 8284t2TFh4UrEmyloCS4XcPjz4Tmy4zJ2gZrpc+owulieVBOtIVH5jqbPE2IP5lr 73bMGmgCaO5+c0r7YS2PwaRAq3aZGejkIs6/bqUGP15YUAETi5sXhEXj2NMvfTZh LpJNXlI0zRvVDBwSBQ+u7IZ4Ct3jL4MOVOR9cxFxvN6qa5mBldNpijCg6HIPfyky J96AH4nNxdyyv9VGI5ctnFoGsV4RROEsoEVyXzk4ypYjFKtyNj/E4h847UPw5Mln 6dLNj7wxmmyXtyQTLsVnVbryhUgbvIQ8Wopqn0rQg4nc0QR8GzmUZY9MtMz7qO12 qmAE3dUQwSdRiSJ4J9xKQ5IB9oKqc21sBrDxwtgAbEet6yo7YOlSSZEaq7nOIrPA Ez/vtgxMvOGGhtZdK7PqVkXVOkSXgQ5RfeGXkMu3jte3HbFXRaC/Z/EisReQGTlB TwMk6NFDOfI4s0MwAJYUGSWoNZ9j1BssWTqBBI2kF6aR+oIQm7gmDsEAUmA/AZ2J QbjPnQ9GS6Bq3VS8gAxX =iuPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E33D7ED9-33D7-46FD-97CF-4C59865A9F20-- From nobody Wed Jan 6 13:20:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EBC1A1A17 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:20:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCUiQLSOOTcT for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805B91A1A51 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-96-226-213-187.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [96.226.213.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u06LKIJU097920 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:20:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-96-226-213-187.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [96.226.213.187] claimed to be unnumerable.local References: <20160106211653.23089.97107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Tools Team Discussion From: Robert Sparks X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20160106211653.23089.97107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <568D8512.5020502@nostrum.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:20:18 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160106211653.23089.97107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060301020607070205080306" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:20:24 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060301020607070205080306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI. This is getting close to done. I'll be asking Jari to take it to last call in a week or so. If you have any comments that need to be address _before_ (as opposed to during) that call, please send them quickly. RjS -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:16:53 -0800 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Robert Sparks A new version of I-D, draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Robert Sparks and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements Revision: 02 Title: Requirements for Improvements to the IETF Email List Archiving, Web-based Browsing and Search Tool Document date: 2016-01-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 7 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02 Abstract: The Web-based IETF email archive search tool based on the requirements captured in RFC6778 was deployed in January 2014. This memo captures the requirements for a set of improvements that have been identified during its initial years of community use. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --------------060301020607070205080306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI.

This is getting close to done.

I'll be asking Jari to take it to last call in a week or so.

If you have any comments that need to be address _before_ (as opposed to during) that call, please send them quickly.

RjS


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:16:53 -0800
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> 


A new version of I-D, draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Robert Sparks and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements
Revision:	02
Title:		Requirements for Improvements to the IETF Email List Archiving, Web-based Browsing and Search Tool 
Document date:	2016-01-06
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		7
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02

Abstract:
   The Web-based IETF email archive search tool based on the
   requirements captured in RFC6778 was deployed in January 2014.  This
   memo captures the requirements for a set of improvements that have
   been identified during its initial years of community use.

                                                                                  


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--------------060301020607070205080306-- From nobody Fri Jan 8 01:13:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ADD1ACEE9 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:13:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qN6n1fhlc-Ok for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA1081ACE82 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:13:09 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,537,1444719600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="92828948" Received: from hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.36]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2016 01:08:08 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:08:08 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::2887:6d2e:a26f:d51e%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:08:08 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] rfcmarkup bug Thread-Index: AQHRR9pJfPO+R6q5vUuluRPsxmmOR57x3pMA Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:08:08 +0000 Message-ID: <0B0B27F6-AA2E-47AC-A504-D5C413422108@netapp.com> References: <3F2920FA-8F59-4C60-87F1-3ECC14DCE635@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <3F2920FA-8F59-4C60-87F1-3ECC14DCE635@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A106BD7F-F988-4943-AE57-CA401A17E855"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] rfcmarkup bug X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:13:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A106BD7F-F988-4943-AE57-CA401A17E855 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2016-01-05, at 17:58, Eggert, Lars wrote: >=20 > there seems to be a bug in rfcmarkup. For = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed/, the plain = text version correctly includes RFC1078 in the list of documents that = are obsoleted. >=20 > But RFC1078 is not listed in either the HTML rendering, or the PDF = rendering. I see the following comment in the rfcmarkup sources: # Assumption: the obsoleted by list never has more than 6 rfcs This assumption is false for this I-D. Lars --Apple-Mail=_A106BD7F-F988-4943-AE57-CA401A17E855 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWj3x3AAoJEFS1wwm/cMFXJDIP/Rf1EpwicA3G49APkLYxvE7y HGRMlH0NkZvJ3SrY8bqzubUh01fyvxyQFS/qaz1/PvQgdQ6exnnx635dQRxoEYAH 5Nac/eCjsKXf1/0O1g9/UadQzGB58DOXu8kadHF+eTl3fxqRnCnjjY3StlVOcISy RNmyyblJeojtTnpYjNpbMM5ImvVDOACRQQ3Bki/UySiKJi9keVMa4xOcohkeQKbJ Pculc/12+Z7Y1m8wlG/UzusZmk7XkJXN5myrSFwIApTALZVvZB/4jwC3SLVwmO2+ hE3lAYnRafLZvsT3CRxY0O0zWTOmAoE/uwNEMyq7d9aFqtmZvoQgxiQAjCl+WBjD sXnnDtMEXvp+XyKRhmFVnCqVgRkBauJbS/ZfjwKyoAonex5Nj1SqoFXh0hFkTKwz sVPft0t3gqNIo9q8LMpqD95tqiQwG2HLn7d/ou1ylSg93V1Zm10dD8ePeGm0R9UQ DEoCbMGu901oJHrQpJCAcJvOQsHiH1vzqlb/et5mO7ZkNWfeL4NiM3PFw+blbf0h Lk/slslSuEZ2UHXk3jvnrnTkHPegp2f9xE4eOgEcnSq4wn9N2Cuto7Ij98bdp4ep 8OedZRacfoK3f9Vv/g/btN1HAc5cWGv8mhP7J/NWd2MsS0E30L1dWWOFYZ4//wOn UNnonAZ3hkTsOhN4X0a1 =lKdz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A106BD7F-F988-4943-AE57-CA401A17E855-- From nobody Wed Jan 13 12:38:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BAE1B322E for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:38:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.465 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjCIzAdW1ECH for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE4E01B322B for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:38:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 5Ydr1s0042PT3Qt01Yesab; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:38:52 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.143.237.82]) by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 5Yes1s00D1nMCLR01YesKT; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:38:52 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u0DKcpEG008028 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:38:51 -0500 Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u0DKcpQ8008025; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:38:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:38:51 -0500 Message-ID: <87si21mcys.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1452717532; bh=X1NZO8T17LAAeuxBTWaGJyulnD8kiINPVNkBfNGNQIE=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=KeY5YON6H7j1K4o59rEHLn66VXxUSTzxNW/roJru06Y3sYSZnq46ZPx3pP+6CC7BH wVk2nAOj3GAeq3NwNKctGAZ0+kH1cO7Oal674vJrqsbgi0dAXlSUZXNKHp4L4ghhZt DRP5XXOza2VKEdDB3aAEfEFG6ZqcuApZAs3wQmk3ZeOevcMqgjYeu8U7eO0DdUcSfE Gw03nW2GqNKo3OcYPLoav2P6bzmdjQSzsqjqe7eer4Sx5v4iW1AaqsahD/BN2Q4Luq Ttoc35I866J5toDeQMdRpkcWC/RaDw+z/SWBczr2Y1kWZlsRaP+1zILJc7Dq/af90Z bzrEs3TkHBWNA== Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Bug in mail archive re identifying the sender X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:38:57 -0000 Looking at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/bvqJHA6kLHOE0GamFfeJjN450Qc, the first lines of the page are: [logo] Mail Archive Sign in [sipcore] Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-01 Simon Perreault | Sat, 29 November 2014 16:48 UTC | Show header but looking at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/LRdKLi9X2bn8bePrddQ4Feh5Ie0 the first lines are: [logo] Mail Archive Sign in [sipcore] comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-02 | Tue, 09 June 2015 02:56 UTC | Show header I.e., sender's name does not show in the second example. Looking at the original headers of the message, I see: From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= The sender's name is "*Dan_Wing ", where I've used "*" to represent U+01F513, "OPEN LOCK". Apparently the code used to isolate the sender name fails on this use of RFC 2047 encoding. IMO, two reasonable solutions are: 1. Present the encoded value. In this case, "=?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= ". 2. Present the decoded value. Since the web page is encoded in UTF-8, this is feasible. Dale From nobody Tue Jan 19 15:59:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103AE1B37FD for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:59:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.768 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H07r6De-ndfj for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 33EDF1B3611 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32144 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2016 23:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2016 23:59:47 -0000 Received: from box514.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.114]) by cmgw3 with id 86zi1s0082UhLwi016zlVH; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:59:45 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bej4Do/B c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9W6Fsu4pMcyimqnCr1W0/w==:117 a=9W6Fsu4pMcyimqnCr1W0/w==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=ieNpE_y6AAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=XYUc-DgfXtMA:10 a=-GPFTR9Xtg4A:10 a=7aQ_Q-yQQ-AA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=J8Cfxl1yflkUbDHjXy0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To; bh=jg3Z3k/FLqpZKGcROJtnYR4f4Hkb/H5qBpmWTAQuzWg=; b=d9Kyyjb9GK+cIPcsgWVGrdpEiuXkmtnstzEj2eGAc3r6ko+eTMu7ZaUuvJ/4+OBO+LiDNcaWpMT+Ji1FNMpq9uAnD+ou5GSN4LlZk1eK7rRd6/yIFz7j4RryQ92i3TMf; Received: from [73.202.80.238] (port=58663 helo=[192.168.11.22]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aLgBc-0000sb-GN for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:59:44 -0700 To: IETF Tools List From: =JeffH Message-ID: <569ECDED.2060707@KingsMountain.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:59:41 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 73.202.80.238 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] bug in internet-draft HTML version links X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:59:50 -0000 It seems that the link to the latest-version I-D, in the shaded box at the very top of an tools.ietf.org/HTML page, will disappear, and occasionally reappear, when one clicks on prior version links. Here's the shaded box version list for : Versions: (draft-ietf-tls-rfc5246-bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 If I click on the "10" link, the list of versions doesn't change. Though, if I click on "06", the "11" link disappears (!) the "11" link also disappears of I click on "03". If I click on any of the other numeric version links, the "11" link re-appears. Occurs in Firefox and Chrome on Mac and Linux. Also occurs for other I-Ds, e.g. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol: "04" is latest version. "04" link disappears if click on "03". Also, it stays gone (or goes away, if it was there) if I click on _any_ of the other numeric links for this I-D. HTH, =JeffH