From nobody Tue Dec 4 08:20:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E139D130EA4 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com 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 1T_aCnqbwu4m for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2033C130E5F for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438Rt85jd9z1Z5qw for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:20:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1543940432; bh=AN7J64oczBwbIWTlJ+8OTLofu8+0meGG8G9oxZ3igoQ=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=iGrwB1ZWupAYFwJZozFsvWlyyzATOBIO4NGMRWZ2+dRtjx45CfpKbsUTKDtpfJXGz zTP605ekDc+BX7tp/GxjDxJGySTwtID4PjhO8ToHUWTBKeGVopf+PsEx/sUGIwz++P cbXd3qmtHgJTtQGI+JZNmcdTCvRfzQSGZeHEgZXI= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 438Rt82xNzz1Z5qt for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:20:32 -0800 (PST) To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <95bfbeb7-ac46-dcda-9dff-bc6fada41da1@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:20:31 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] WG Chairing tooling oddity X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:20:39 -0000 I was submitting a document to the IESG today, and noticed what seemed an oddity in the tooling. Clearly low priority. I had marked the document as pending shepherd writeup, and tagged the annotation to match. When I went to submit the document to the IESG, the screen complained about the annotation. When I went to the WG Document State page, there was no sensible state to put it in while removing the annotation. Leaving it as needing the writeup when I had just uploaded the writeup seemed wrong. So I ended up submitting it to the IESG with the annotation tag still present. And simply ignored the warning. Not wure what the right weak is for this case. Thanks, Joel From nobody Tue Dec 11 12:12:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0414130F55 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 SSmbChiDpdtM for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A24C0124D68 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBF66F99A for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:12:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64E882043F; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:12:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:12:15 -0500 Message-ID: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:12:34 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed HTML data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they were never issued: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889 ("RFC 3889 was never issued.") However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP 404). Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the xx00 range -- i think these used to be reserved for "Internet Official Protocol Standards" summary documents, and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC summary" documents, both of which are now retired. (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100).=20=20 However, there are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or xx00: rfc8 rfc9 rfc51 rfc418 rfc530 rfc598 rfc3333 rfc3350 rfc3907 rfc3908 rfc4232 rfc4658 rfc4751 rfc4921 rfc4922 rfc4989 rfc5108 rfc5312 rfc5313 rfc5314 rfc5315 rfc5319 rfc5809 rfc5821 rfc5822 rfc5823 rfc6019 rfc6102 rfc6103 rfc6523 rfc6524 rfc6634 rfc6966 rfc6995 rfc7327 rfc7907 rfc8389 For consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs would get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could all return a 404. Is there some semantic difference we should infer for one thing over another? --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBAaHwAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 UwdfAQCgkqBSbuNc7lGvLJOzpsuYqLtMZQZBvpHbJvkf0vhGvQEA9fIZjAz20P2K 9ld5QThjnW2bngImcIWl1VdXzpev8AY= =LnHn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 12:15:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB855130F5B for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:15:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 8opdtNpLRj7u for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4643130F55 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17729F99A for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9295C2043F; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:15:06 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:15:03 -0500 Message-ID: <87pnu7rfaw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Title in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:15:15 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain The following RFCs don't have a element in the html rendering, despite clearly having a title (e.g. in

: rfc1255 rfc1218 rfc2261 rfc2262 rfc2264 rfc2305 rfc3493 rfc8438 I'm not sure what makes these special, but it'd be great if they could be refreshed to include the appropriate metadata tags. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBAaxwAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 UwTDAPwM+o1b0IHnnt70TlJyR8l8h0bcTaf7GBC/a3n9nOvlaAD+Li71ZVmcf6Hb wFhxsYUGoTaxh7Z7jodQAHKOBOrj2Ag= =vG3X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 12:21:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB1F130F5B for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:21:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 nBH0lyPP6nLl for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F82D130F55 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5200CF99A for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1D1AD2043F; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:21:42 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:21:38 -0500 Message-ID: <87mupbrezx.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Missing DC.Identifier in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:21:46 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Typically, most RFCs HTML version has some metadata like: However, some HTML RFCs don't have this tag at all. Most of them are quite recent (8[345]xx) ! I've included the list below. Is there a reason that these RFCs shouldn't have this metadata included? or do they need a refresh to ensure that it's present? --dkg RFCs that are missing DC.Identifier metadata: rfc2587 rfc6019 rfc8383 rfc8385 rfc8391 rfc8397 rfc8398 rfc8402 rfc8403 rfc8407 rfc8408 rfc8413 rfc8414 rfc8415 rfc8418 rfc8422 rfc8423 rfc8425 rfc8429 rfc8430 rfc8431 rfc8432 rfc8443 rfc8449 rfc8451 rfc8453 rfc8455 rfc8456 rfc8458 rfc8460 rfc8463 rfc8466 rfc8469 rfc8470 rfc8471 rfc8478 rfc8479 rfc8481 rfc8485 rfc8486 rfc8487 rfc8491 rfc8493 rfc8497 rfc8501 rfc8505 rfc8521 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBAcUwAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 Uyd/AQDkwT5RcXEMI5M9Q3YAf+YU6+NAtUSOX75zYcy+QMpjjwEA84c/41OKObfa t/eh9KeZWXSfx3WmwI9UnalYopJyUg0= =YChv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 12:54:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AC0130F1B for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 QZmeGUMicL-m for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737C5130F14 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FAA4F99B for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8DAB72043F; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:25:02 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:24:59 -0500 Message-ID: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:54:37 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain A handful of published RFCs have an author/editor listed, but do not include any tags that identify DC.Creator. They're listed at the end of this e-mail. I don't know why they're missing, but it would be great if we could refresh these RFCs HTML versions so that they have the correct metadata elements. Regards, --dkg published RFCs that are missing DC.Creator tags: rfc109 rfc206 rfc347 rfc571 rfc588 rfc616 rfc1465 rfc1591 rfc2070 rfc2201 rfc2279 rfc2634 rfc2886 rfc2901 rfc2941 rfc2946 rfc2953 rfc3117 rfc3296 rfc3305 rfc3564 rfc3619 rfc5540 rfc5941 rfc6207 rfc6262 rfc6414 rfc6604 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBAdGwAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 U8jAAPwLnKF8+GGJ/QxGjjejBtwrieZy9pSlugpo+JbFqZqBTAEA3S8/wOPVRiYp +CJACRrQV2M21RICUmR/TbNWqBgRsw0= =HfzM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 12:54:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB3112E036 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 L0DdvLVzHHO8 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B592124D68 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82D58F99A for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CEDA22065D; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:54:31 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:54:28 -0500 Message-ID: <87h8fjrdh7.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] dublincore date, identifier, and relationship metadata for drafts and RFCs in HTML tags X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:54:38 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I've been looking at the generated metadata tags in the HTML variants of RFCs and drafts, as you can tell by my recent on-list reports. One thing i have noticed about the metadata in the drafts is that the DC.Identifier and DC.Date.Issued all seem to be related to the *most recent* version of any given draft, even on the older versions. Picking RFC 6188 at random as an example to compare (the "Header" column means "what a human would read if they were looking at the .txt version in the upper right-hand corner"): draft name | DC.Identifier | DC.Date.Issued | Header ------------------------------+---------------------------------+----------------+----------------- draft-mcgrew-srtp-big-aes-00 | urn:ietf:id:mcgrew-srtp-big-aes | 2009-03-05 | April 26, 2006 draft-mcgrew-srtp-big-aes-01 | urn:ietf:id:mcgrew-srtp-big-aes | 2009-03-05 | March 5, 2009 draft-ietf-avt-srtp-big-aes-00| urn:ietf:rfc:6188 | March, 2011 | August 24, 2006 draft-ietf-avt-srtp-big-aes-01| urn:ietf:rfc:6188 | March, 2011 | July 6, 2009 [...] rfc6188 | urn:ietf:rfc:6188 | March, 2011 | March 2011 I'm a bit confused by this. Shouldn't DC.Date.Issued match the date of the specific draft, not of its ultimate RFC (if it was published)? In this case, we're talking about a difference of 5 years. Also, shouldn't the DC.Identifier of a draft be the draft name (without version suffix), instead of the ultimate RFC (if it was published as such)? Finally, while DC.Relation.Replaces appears to point from RFC 6188 to draft-mcgrew-srtp-big-aes, shouldn't it point to draft-ietf-avt-srtp-big-aes instead, while draft-ietf-avt-srt-big-aes points to draft-mcgrew-srtp-big-aes ? I also note that some RFCs don't mention their previous draft names at all in the DC.Relation.Replaces metadata field. Concretely, RFC 8446 doesn't mention draft-ietf-tls-tls13 at all there. Is this intentional? Is there some documentation about how i should interpret this metadata? --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBAkBAAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 U57kAP9YvD78p0dEHrNqfVoTIQGms46FzaxE0ecPFyyDMJf58AEAnYr5+OD1CGgK opN/awKh45J2fd/U5hoO5awjI2wndA4= =USPQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 14:28:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C81130F58 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 fOcD7Wdp1C_Z for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x644.google.com (mail-pl1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::644]) (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 2C9D31286E7 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x644.google.com with SMTP id g9so7587642plo.3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=7d/kknSHafucRVtruSGFPLwC5oRt+mdRmfWIhTUUSdU=; b=IX+LITpX8zdVEfDbBBkkXI+MRezMrzBkpJG9nrdjKOs53v9QwGSVDug5LPzGOwuGD4 1mfXIgbZTKWS0AKsp+kV6/0/Od6CZ+SUG68Jxc8x48kZVJ/LFhERi9ZoR1pl6okrf5aY j3rDiLlEJ2RM8bhALO7sIz1LXHrTapjt5jN4Dggz+BUTFxuQuRBo11WO6LxYiJ/dKnuK C1stIPvqvEFij+G3dEwxyDx23V+Nj08fmIOhVn6KH1TMmLS9AV4doya7NvnwiET4AD2d hEEMRdZMPjGaMIyNgi1gZcjXVpUjiM5AdWF4kATs0ccreW6UI+JO7vXaf3+hQLU5JqXk /KjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=7d/kknSHafucRVtruSGFPLwC5oRt+mdRmfWIhTUUSdU=; b=tpmx/Xo/04Lp8eZII1rsbwMUha/QTMKUxPLvbbkzZqLGXDX3INIeNjD5ldWDA9F590 BnHKpADmGYPH7tpw+UVRlSmRsq2r9FTAQx4dX7bA6H9D3TUM/05JYH2zMxlfqbH4jfRL Zvl+yPu0vUk/vwFSknV2d0URG/NdZwBYYz/lR8hXgL+WUjLkL3sfdlV6FW+/n27wtcE5 QlgGeF4XoUggHOBVKYEG//DGtrOOEjsjX1KrSUN2Ie2fA2oa7UYEbbLO35zykbjbFgX+ ehwJDvzk6Fo8z/XpB3B6qilSJvdYlEuovMVzYYrzAoeg1Vuosu+IyoJd+gY9mYIuET2f 1odA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb6XbG5CjwnJdAWY/GDw/JRiOVEI0UVQYouelNmnuRsyVEXyftI Zev9t7CjKzlbkj4OwDUXUGtW7B0Q0x0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VnCYabmFSeGIhf6a+hQjaBfzn7SVbG/Zczl/UOHYHoMxPI8HDkimrhz4//2saYV+kmwaTqfg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:201:: with SMTP id 1mr17510578plc.62.1544567297470; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b2sm22274724pgg.87.2018.12.11.14.28.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:28:16 -0800 (PST) To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , tools-discuss@ietf.org References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:28:11 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9EF4721BDFC211D92CF0C8D3" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:28:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9EF4721BDFC211D92CF0C8D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel, I agree that if an RFC is listed in the official RFC index as "Not issued", that should be the reply from the tools site instead of a 404. I recently generated a list of such RFCs for another reason (attached FYI). Do any of those generate a 404? If so, that's a tools bug. You'll notice that the most recent one is 4637. More recent gaps in the index are very likely RFCs where the number has been reserved for an approved draft that is in limbo (MISSREF or a perpetual AUTH48 for example). That's a normal situation and 404 seems appropriate to me. Anyway, that's a question for the rfc-interest list, I think, not here. There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2018-12-12 09:12, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > I notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed HTML > data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they were never > issued: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889 > > ("RFC 3889 was never issued.") > > However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP 404). > > Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the xx00 range -- i think > these used to be reserved for "Internet Official Protocol Standards" > summary documents, and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC > summary" documents, both of which are now retired. (see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100). > > However, there are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or > xx00: > > rfc8 > rfc9 > rfc51 > rfc418 > rfc530 > rfc598 > rfc3333 > rfc3350 > rfc3907 > rfc3908 > rfc4232 > rfc4658 > rfc4751 > rfc4921 > rfc4922 > rfc4989 > rfc5108 > rfc5312 > rfc5313 > rfc5314 > rfc5315 > rfc5319 > rfc5809 > rfc5821 > rfc5822 > rfc5823 > rfc6019 > rfc6102 > rfc6103 > rfc6523 > rfc6524 > rfc6634 > rfc6966 > rfc6995 > rfc7327 > rfc7907 > rfc8389 > > > For consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs would > get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could all return > a 404. Is there some semantic difference we should infer for one thing > over another? > > --dkg > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org > > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org > --------------9EF4721BDFC211D92CF0C8D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="rfc-not.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rfc-not.txt" ICAjIyMjICBOb3QgSXNzdWVkLgowMDE0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMDI2IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMDkyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMTU5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjAxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMjIwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjQ0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjQ4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMjU3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjU4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjU5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMjYwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjYxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjYyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMjcyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjc1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjc3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMjc5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMjg0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMzM3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMzQxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMzU4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMzc1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowMzgwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMzgzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowMzk3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNDI0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNDI3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNDI4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNDQ0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNDY1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNDgxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNDg0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTAyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTA3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNTE3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTM2IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTQwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNTQxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTU0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTU4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNTY0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTcyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNTc1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNTgzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjA1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjM5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNjQxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjQ2IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjQ4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNjQ5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjUwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjY0IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNjY1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjY4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjcwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNjczIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjc2IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNjgyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNjkzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNzA5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNzEwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowNzExIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNzE1IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAowNzIzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAowODUzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAoxMDYxIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAoxMTgyIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAoxMjYwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAoxODM5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAoxODQwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAozMTAwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAozMjAwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAozMjIzIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAozMzI4IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAozNDAwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAozNTAwIE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQu IAozODg5IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAo0NjM3IE5vdCBJc3N1ZWQuIAo= --------------9EF4721BDFC211D92CF0C8D3-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 15:07:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71395128BCC for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:07:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 RbXMgT5SS6nC for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC47E124D68 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CBB1C35F8; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:06:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BctRkbaXwBum; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandygiozasmbp2.frontierlocal.net (unknown [47.156.81.60]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 769E61C2DBA; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:06:36 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Ginoza Message-Id: <56E0FC30-F7CB-48BB-B357-F60D7BE8D1D0@amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1557D29E-8893-4C16-8D01-729DA13B9F4C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:06:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1557D29E-8893-4C16-8D01-729DA13B9F4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Daniel, > On Dec 11, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor = wrote: >=20 > I notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed = HTML > data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they were never > issued: >=20 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889 >=20 > ("RFC 3889 was never issued.") >=20 > However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP 404). I believe this data comes from rfc-editor.org . =20= This page needs to be updated, but provides data regarding which RFCs = were never issued:=20 https://www.rfc-editor.org/never-issued/ > Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the xx00 range -- i think > these used to be reserved for "Internet Official Protocol Standards" > summary documents, and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC > summary" documents, both of which are now retired. (see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100). =20 >=20 > However, there are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or > xx00: >=20 > rfc8 > rfc9 > rfc51 > rfc418 > rfc530 > rfc598 > rfc3333 > rfc3350 > rfc3907 > rfc3908 > rfc4232 > rfc4658 > rfc4751 > rfc4921 > rfc4922 > rfc4989 > rfc5108 > rfc5312 > rfc5313 > rfc5314 > rfc5315 > rfc5319 > rfc5809 > rfc5821 > rfc5822 > rfc5823 > rfc6019 > rfc6102 > rfc6103 > rfc6523 > rfc6524 > rfc6634 > rfc6966 > rfc6995 > rfc7327 > rfc7907 > rfc8389 >=20 >=20 > For consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs = would > get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could all = return > a 404. Is there some semantic difference we should infer for one = thing > over another? No, there is no difference. This is on our agenda for cleanup in 2019; = we intend to update the "never issued=E2=80=9D list mentioned above and = make handling uniform. Thanks for providing the list above. Sandy >=20 > --dkg > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_1557D29E-8893-4C16-8D01-729DA13B9F4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi Daniel,

On Dec 11, 2018, at 12:12 PM, = Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:

I = notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed HTML
data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they = were never
issued:

=     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889

("RFC 3889 was never issued.")

However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP = 404).

I believe this data comes from rfc-editor.org. =  

This page needs to be = updated, but provides data regarding which RFCs were never = issued: 


Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the = xx00 range -- i think
these used to be reserved for = "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
summary documents, = and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC
summary" = documents, both of which are now retired. (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100).  

However, there = are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or
xx00:

 rfc8
=  rfc9
 rfc51
 rfc418
 rfc530
 rfc598
=  rfc3333
 rfc3350
=  rfc3907
 rfc3908
=  rfc4232
 rfc4658
=  rfc4751
 rfc4921
=  rfc4922
 rfc4989
=  rfc5108
 rfc5312
=  rfc5313
 rfc5314
=  rfc5315
 rfc5319
=  rfc5809
 rfc5821
=  rfc5822
 rfc5823
=  rfc6019
 rfc6102
=  rfc6103
 rfc6523
=  rfc6524
 rfc6634
=  rfc6966
 rfc6995
=  rfc7327
 rfc7907
=  rfc8389


For = consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs would
get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could = all return
a 404.  Is there some semantic difference = we should infer for one thing
over another?

No, = there is no difference.  This is on our agenda for cleanup in 2019; = we intend to update the "never issued=E2=80=9D list mentioned above and = make handling uniform.  Thanks for providing the list = above.

Sandy



=     --dkg
___________________________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

Please report datatracker.ietf.org and = mailarchive.ietf.org
bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
or send email to = datatracker-project@ietf.org

Please report = tools.ietf.org bugs at
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issuesor send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail=_1557D29E-8893-4C16-8D01-729DA13B9F4C-- From nobody Tue Dec 11 15:31:13 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02A2130F61 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:31:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 9QWXNAfh0cYJ for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE9C128BCC for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-37-140.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([94.254.37.140]:62611 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gWrUb-0006yE-0A; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:31:09 -0800 To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , tools-discuss@ietf.org References: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> From: Henrik Levkowetz Message-ID: <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:31:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="owPWWssqRFdRBNrESc2RsAeFRJXxqbTPf" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.254.37.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:31:12 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --owPWWssqRFdRBNrESc2RsAeFRJXxqbTPf Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="iwCKqXrLiPAPUFS327V2cWHNHgo4dms7T"; protected-headers="v1" From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions References: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> In-Reply-To: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> --iwCKqXrLiPAPUFS327V2cWHNHgo4dms7T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Daniel, I'll respond to all 3 DC\..* subject emails in one, as the response is pretty much the same: The underlying code is quite old, varying from 10 to 15 years old by this time, and did not (and does not) have any of the sophisticated data available which we have today through the datatracker database. It does not have the ability, for instance, to differentiate between author sets for different versions of the document.= Rewriting the code today to fetch information from the database instead would give much better results. That's not on the table at present, but is something I might spend some time on when all the xml2rfc and idnits rewrite deliverables are out, and I've recovered. Maybe in the spring. However, with respect to author information for old RFCs and drafts, the datatracker also has missing information. In a different context it has recently been discussed whether to try to manually fill in the gaps in that information. The format of early drafts and RFCs are sufficiently irregular that I don't see anything but manual data entry as workable. Best regards, Henrik On 2018-12-11 21:24, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > A handful of published RFCs have an author/editor listed, but do not > include any tags that identify DC.Creator. They're listed at th= e > end of this e-mail. >=20 > I don't know why they're missing, but it would be great if we could > refresh these RFCs HTML versions so that they have the correct metadata= > elements. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > --dkg >=20 > published RFCs that are missing DC.Creator tags: >=20 > rfc109 > rfc206 > rfc347 > rfc571 > rfc588 > rfc616 > rfc1465 > rfc1591 > rfc2070 > rfc2201 > rfc2279 > rfc2634 > rfc2886 > rfc2901 > rfc2941 > rfc2946 > rfc2953 > rfc3117 > rfc3296 > rfc3305 > rfc3564 > rfc3619 > rfc5540 > rfc5941 > rfc6207 > rfc6262 > rfc6414 > rfc6604 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >=20 --iwCKqXrLiPAPUFS327V2cWHNHgo4dms7T-- --owPWWssqRFdRBNrESc2RsAeFRJXxqbTPf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEifjc5+rnL1MJBcZSTptXS4+7FxoFAlwQSLUACgkQTptXS4+7 FxrjAQ//U2Iwvx0HDFW3KxJczWMn+7546TeO9mS/9FU1RFkJfmN24hJFNIDNc6ef MOVGFy1CEwCVPjRDki78DTu+lmKyEfoighTRBytdZtfcTgZm215FOUqG1AZE1Wy+ o7mXaMsJZyGOXQZw9ZkhpI4oMgkjenCkU+/zCYoXe9xDwlIDp9BQoSmcRmpJW2ME pvykcvxzCrj46dVd2Tm+DRSTXtDP40BlRDVGfziv8Te9Dj7BWtxVqsR1EfjfieNv Iin8O6dlPmPXhmASFDBzafRkh8FSgL2ZLWbq+fAX4FaOEIdtLB1KNR18XQbq0nKP f0++p45CLLoPY8okhIoEqeuvtMY6F+kDyezjEPhcWXo0OV1KrweTcOdMr0MG+k/w Hj4eU8HodV8G7a25pL3BAVRDKAjxu0Ul6Yl8PTDSq76z0Ws52NtEA9b3wN0o4qCF l3+xJ2GE54AQ0sgiXDPcv1+GQ+6JwUMM0/9wgvj2Vm2lmW5674nwZ8B5SQ76HdS0 II68aOq1hc7bSJNORFGDCtUOACTGysYxdPGB5U2qNzQe5uixCD9NwBtoEJuV1p+4 PH0GJW3lkdyfdHXxFwDKaSaAaRcwflhbsaR25uwSdAV2dcBzTbB7wrhUmuQ6TBZh Z5vqfhfb+HX3vzr/yNWVJUcjeAAhWkM11DVVA8iWzRK8km1uv5s= =pLzn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --owPWWssqRFdRBNrESc2RsAeFRJXxqbTPf-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 06:02:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AAF130DDF for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 6GUeS_2msRrW for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C93130DF3 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:60d:506c:b3ff:fe17:51b2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC882F99A; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9AC76211E3; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:02:12 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:02:12 -0500 Message-ID: <87wooeq1wb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:02:33 -0000 On Wed 2018-12-12 11:28:11 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > You'll notice that the most recent one is 4637. More recent > gaps in the index are very likely RFCs where the number has > been reserved for an approved draft that is in limbo (MISSREF > or a perpetual AUTH48 for example). That's a normal situation > and 404 seems appropriate to me. Anyway, that's a question > for the rfc-interest list, I think, not here. I'm aware of that situation (i've had drafts stuck there for ages too), which is why i stopped my analysis at 8389 > There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: > 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, > but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. This *is* susprising to me. I see that some of these are scans of handwritten documents or drawings :/ If we can't convert these PDFs into text/plain and text/html formats, it would be good to at least provide a redirection. At the moment it looks like those docs don't even exist. --dkg From nobody Wed Dec 12 06:54:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C68130DDD for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.889 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 QeRnykCI_yU5 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45FAE130DE0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74675F99A; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 143C020C60; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Henrik Levkowetz , tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> References: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:00:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87y38uq1zf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:54:42 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain hi Henrik-- thanks for the quick feedback! On Wed 2018-12-12 00:31:01 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > I'll respond to all 3 DC\..* subject emails in one, as the response is > pretty much the same: The underlying code is quite old, varying from > 10 to 15 years old by this time, and did not (and does not) have any of > the sophisticated data available which we have today through the > datatracker database. It does not have the ability, for instance, to > differentiate between author sets for different versions of the document. i see, thanks. > Rewriting the code today to fetch information from the database instead > would give much better results. That's not on the table at present, but > is something I might spend some time on when all the xml2rfc and idnits > rewrite deliverables are out, and I've recovered. Maybe in the spring. thanks for that timeline! fwiw, i don't see a way to use the datatracker's web interface to get metadata about older drafts either :/ Is access to the datatracker's database public (either via RESTful API or some other mechanism)? Should i be pursuing the kind of larger search/scan capabiities i'm trying to build via datatracker-project@ietf.org (or somewhere else) instead of tools-discuss@ietf.org? > However, with respect to author information for old RFCs and drafts, the > datatracker also has missing information. In a different context it has > recently been discussed whether to try to manually fill in the gaps in > that information. The format of early drafts and RFCs are sufficiently > irregular that I don't see anything but manual data entry as workable. There aren't all that many early drafts and RFCs, so i think manual data entry isn't unreasonable. If everyone reading this list pitched in and did data entry for 10 or 20 documents, we'd probably be able to fill in the gaps. is there a way that we can let people actually do that data entry so that it's useful for everyone else? Again, i can do all this stuff by hand, for my own projects, or i can do it so that it's useful for everyone. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTTaP514aqS9uSbmdJsHx7ezFD6UwUCXBEUdAAKCRBsHx7ezFD6 U+qUAP4/iqn7WLn2+fjG9ovW//DBvW4ZYq/p81WsxJRj4mzpPQEAsjy8UyqZV30q 6A7/s82iHv0Dp7+e5OJ6KlRFkBQfSAI= =W7t3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 07:28:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DC4130E13 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:28:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 TN5_CYMbRj19 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:28:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 B0CE6127333 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:28:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id a18so6429619wmj.1 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:28:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=MWLHiWxwM0QH/u50FKj5diW6+0R/qU0Sk9/pZoK7bIA=; b=FKQoHyRyOWNnXFsfHzUarmMuSlvB9J0xACAPNQLSOOfChiWuNIq0geoplbGvKLdXHI OTGY82QdBQPLUO4/IXhNZDQCU/Ow/Ad/+Mn1gfFGfERk4JILBUudcLjMHd8lfgiX+i3Y 9HsjZimjv/MThZz2TWeKtgSl1XpyAtT7h5IkNxq6A0CzUCNTtjhb7KEyJyg/O+n15gqp NOCK5ahluOHb9mMXbMeKGItFrEswITta9SfFKEidMytLzAc2IUTLA8o82vNDLLhe4L3O c1/45MMTpVgakPOwSBg/Bqi8kvaz60caaw1R2Cb2atA/W7o9v4g7tYEJvv4gWgIEf/cr gK/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=MWLHiWxwM0QH/u50FKj5diW6+0R/qU0Sk9/pZoK7bIA=; b=LUn93ws9LE+OJP93ztqYCINbFtk77GhGb7ss3EU9YEOzoMeIv9M1wSvzM7eyXiCBwZ ToR+udBA92/cd+GNrBeCx8/1WXxmTqhC9oQZ0gafTWjCWEK6Dxhl9lFYObjFwfWPVg4g fShcVZD1EIK3TotBgbi2CX9coSIUOzHN5Q89okqgwNi+yrfTuiFOY9dnJ26qbHHvg3zX YvoXrfL5m9TVagYQEag1cB1B+8MKuHGAo2VbaLHidffvqdYpALRsho80oQ05qV4HZEC4 kMnVIUrdQiKWtf2Y3Shdso3+jXUw3slix8ZDgwemihh/H+H7TcbqJwKNKpgqjdGl/YyY MF+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZkHzC7s+asz0lQUeyreAiR9MF4C+6d9RQhQr2SXUvDlCmJJChy ci5U0DzUvDeO8IkbsobpehM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VR077cO7Yksm+5OsVoYMbQHME2DFWN3ZioD/3Zdl+RceKi0EIckd8X0tg4Az36DHRNLc0xng== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e913:: with SMTP id q19mr6911641wmc.55.1544628480121; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.50] (c-76-21-112-100.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [76.21.112.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y13sm16116539wme.2.2018.12.12.07.27.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:27:59 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D873A867-F901-4162-900E-22E04444F13B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:27:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Tools Team Discussion , Sandy Ginoza To: Brian Carpenter References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:28:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D873A867-F901-4162-900E-22E04444F13B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Brian, > On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: > 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, > but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, wasn=E2=80=99= t there a project to do this? What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in the = past. Bob >=20 > Regards > Brian Carpenter >=20 > On 2018-12-12 09:12, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> I notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed = HTML >> data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they were never >> issued: >>=20 >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889 >>=20 >> ("RFC 3889 was never issued.") >>=20 >> However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP 404). >>=20 >> Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the xx00 range -- i think >> these used to be reserved for "Internet Official Protocol Standards" >> summary documents, and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC >> summary" documents, both of which are now retired. (see >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100). >>=20 >> However, there are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or >> xx00: >>=20 >> rfc8 >> rfc9 >> rfc51 >> rfc418 >> rfc530 >> rfc598 >> rfc3333 >> rfc3350 >> rfc3907 >> rfc3908 >> rfc4232 >> rfc4658 >> rfc4751 >> rfc4921 >> rfc4922 >> rfc4989 >> rfc5108 >> rfc5312 >> rfc5313 >> rfc5314 >> rfc5315 >> rfc5319 >> rfc5809 >> rfc5821 >> rfc5822 >> rfc5823 >> rfc6019 >> rfc6102 >> rfc6103 >> rfc6523 >> rfc6524 >> rfc6634 >> rfc6966 >> rfc6995 >> rfc7327 >> rfc7907 >> rfc8389 >>=20 >>=20 >> For consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs = would >> get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could all = return >> a 404. Is there some semantic difference we should infer for one = thing >> over another? >>=20 >> --dkg >>=20 >>=20 >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>=20 >> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org >> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >>=20 >> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues >> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >>=20 > = ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_D873A867-F901-4162-900E-22E04444F13B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAlwRKPsACgkQrut0EXfn u6g/xQf+MRZWSJiMzhS9vyXStYe4ibXrLMuNGwIPRHzTeHP6ZrGUdNOGPMwJIPZR m9XmZ6uQR8AAKem+kkYSuZGHj/oh7Grfbel3zeYC6tDvGx5C9YbbQns5LDxWMJh7 lYoOKeFYnJQTK9Snk4Hund9J7dv2uqRUvnZvBuAiiqye7TH3C7yvemZj9EhFP8X6 eDjmMhjrSEb5KlBInhsmXJYdbAmaUxQmaz30lJG5FF2f+zC3UgjoIreJ9I/oJubd TNn2oWhPtvZfb3f8MiRgWieXi8rDjKopkhRxGb8BYKpfToGqqBBX6w4wKVehu9e5 JwslekT8uKqRtT/H+ge2caIhR4AjCA== =7OTb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D873A867-F901-4162-900E-22E04444F13B-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 08:51:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E054130E2F for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:51:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com 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 6ritLRlAoitJ for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:51:11 -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 D6FDB12F1A5 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBCGp9Zs088632 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:51:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1544633470; bh=GvmJzGObxVJOsXkdzt80ZoLEv9KZNVZ5j+Vjap6L4dk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Iy0GtjUAm+U1wb7Nxe0QeVF4KK1D4AnRhHG/g1FlIoMTpdKVPqzKF2UvRmqcxA3Au u3tYDb39J97mvzJKfy4Vkv/MmCIypSoVeh1sb29k2A/2h3C2Z8Wg6ZNoiaPpWF9q0F hwD9iKKMMtFcDLK4MVn+oepzBvFyURygLZs9stsk= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local To: Bob Hinden , Brian Carpenter Cc: Tools Team Discussion References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:51:04 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:51:13 -0000 On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: > Brian, > >> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, >> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. > I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, wasn’t there a project to do this? > > What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in the past. My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form contain items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current ASCII-only format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters that are not part of ASCII [e.g., ¢], etc).  It's probably worth revisiting this effort after the new format tools are in production, since they will likely clear out several such barriers. /a From nobody Wed Dec 12 08:59:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFE7126DBF for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 ZZV0Uu-bHgW2 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (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 0CC3A130EE8 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id j2so18453838wrw.1 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=1DH2h2JZFXAladGV3WO24ugMIC9Xb9GiknqlVSGQ9bQ=; b=ObM+AyQSg0LY+VNMDJnkmaVqPAA8pGeGRE8qHitZXj0m2hksEQGn7ixEAMNOcSOpTR CoRdJv1VYb4DnupZQi8WhtRqo+Bi8wC0ehKuNY8cKWoMH2BeK7eh08yyC0VM+He7yOrN e6JFlY5HGVV+xocInXzKXyoSZvKD/QFgKxfnjEjtGnigu1VmZeIjQLeBReCmHVv6gX/n IJlT6RMO7qlUXHmCdqx58tzfriRC1HpPHQd18556M0+W7uInvjA2+TPUPFInn383ZqjF k24ok3L+TMfpcl/u9NGYJ1MVymvWKtX1TBcWgfLeZNm2v883EhII2C7LTmDr8dLgBhc1 hv0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=1DH2h2JZFXAladGV3WO24ugMIC9Xb9GiknqlVSGQ9bQ=; b=ZOUKHtyDv3MG91VHRocT9xNNuda+axDpV7zwrgO8TT4CdCFNfG84zwOTYXesQ0chtf Ng4errXAznjHAVAMfF3pX6MT2bavpGPBN7Zm5vSYSlQFWhDahWhbCkZBYvdAkAICap/3 NY64651LjBqWKH4+cWksolzrionvxyBnKOpxeom1buZ6LtZL3Et3KbcYy/pxo90EXRcX dpXD5dlTXUvrUfvRnRug7hKGTdSwQF43xqUS2cuCyf5v+2tkofWC6mVvjd+wERmuOw9k 0fxPosTS6wyPUGEGJ5RBQleewNokxYd/CSxC3tWkIA2GYYpFPEQ1gUMjC5ZZ6GGZ3nk4 UPSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbyMl3p9/E8QJeKKESIfpCLpZdZ1exrDxOcXiBCFkTQ6uYwyH9+ yVbc2MjOTPTl74Bkg9lpORk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UiBuB2NNCJI5TM8OGIm0zV7ErO7y9+RGR6qB0mMwzroaNs9P7qvf3h9KOXD6cCoEQ7llXPcg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4b42:: with SMTP id w2mr18224920wrs.156.1544633956440; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4d01:f3a:3443:ed11:1d33:b567? ([2601:647:4d01:f3a:3443:ed11:1d33:b567]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a12sm18318344wrm.45.2018.12.12.08.59.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:15 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0B79F44E-BE60-4B81-98B1-331B8BB097FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:59:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , Brian Carpenter , Tools Team Discussion To: Adam Roach References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:59:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0B79F44E-BE60-4B81-98B1-331B8BB097FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Adam, > On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >=20 > On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Brian, >>=20 >>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>=20 >>> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >>> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, >>> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. >> I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, = wasn=E2=80=99t there a project to do this? >>=20 >> What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in = the past. >=20 > My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form contain = items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current ASCII-only = format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters that are not = part of ASCII [e.g., =C2=A2], etc). It's probably worth revisiting this = effort after the new format tools are in production, since they will = likely clear out several such barriers. I was looking at RFC51. While it could be done with some mix of = creative ascii art, using the new format tools might be better. It = would be a good test of the new tools. Bob >=20 > /a --Apple-Mail=_0B79F44E-BE60-4B81-98B1-331B8BB097FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAlwRPmAACgkQrut0EXfn u6jCDwf/eA+vqJ33ksF16ZqapXATfZl3j0AGL5LsfLEY/7qciwSN0BAXwLxpaXoi tuHKEepJdK/1TGGYzj57pDd4baqnp4hgo1IyB3nFHnqNKl+/KcwwFxENQLSXV3Uq Bwy0jmJaQgMyabuz7TxkWPWufKHC3h9Bl0HKBzNHkS8JbMXCcBKf6dOjGYioj8TX 0wFSP67+GV5a3qSNHEV7cw3WeDxo4AnhEIVuWiHjlJw9d0DgKorn4rtRh50AwMDn tIf7acbnDOq1dw4vEVxG7zE7KfiskVy+laq0mwtqk6WWzqBYGqWRCJ3ut7vF3JRK hIwTtQdU4fvZRpF3NjfIkQtIsnQWYQ== =vEpq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0B79F44E-BE60-4B81-98B1-331B8BB097FB-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 11:00:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE01C131232 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 u7ahUE6y8s23 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E875513122A for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E411C39F3; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0u2qEJzLFnp; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandygiozasmbp2.frontierlocal.net (unknown [47.156.81.60]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A26891C35F7; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Sandy Ginoza In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:19 -0800 Cc: Adam Roach , Tools Team Discussion , "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> To: Bob Hinden X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:00:37 -0000 Hi there, I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old = documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests = =E2=80=9Cwe want a significant visual distinction between the old docs = and the v3 docs.=E2=80=9D Sandy > On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >=20 > Adam, >=20 >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >>=20 >> On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> Brian, >>>=20 >>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >>>> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no = surprise, >>>> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. >>> I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, = wasn=E2=80=99t there a project to do this? >>>=20 >>> What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in = the past. >>=20 >> My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form contain = items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current ASCII-only = format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters that are not = part of ASCII [e.g., =C2=A2], etc). It's probably worth revisiting this = effort after the new format tools are in production, since they will = likely clear out several such barriers. >=20 > I was looking at RFC51. While it could be done with some mix of = creative ascii art, using the new format tools might be better. It = would be a good test of the new tools. >=20 > Bob >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> /a >=20 > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org From nobody Wed Dec 12 11:13:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475C713123E for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 nrtMwR17uUTF for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (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 35435130F08 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id y4so8746022pgc.12 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=5sH88xtoc4HFS6NEO73AdH4QekdLFZ+KZGWKBnz/jxw=; b=MyIF5BYR/ntbfQfz780zrgXQrAV6C+jEDsPYht/Y1NP9nvAn6KTPSFY/vaX2dcqfn6 e5R8J0X9Gl2abovlsL4tl4WwHHaoQHnV73GGf9FHxPxk/XDHE9HBLUH6r0aNGLFT0iYd 1Opu+fi91B/t5r96LF/SNMXdN8Xo544kU0GBXzKlJZutwYmy7rkPvViC2SbAGUw/svQ5 p7urn23a6S0lQF2R4zIvcdo9feLskorjrvktTh44X4xzfVfIxrrgPJr0uRA1qmXueJKe jItoHFHNAkigzdF2EJflUhsIyCBnTwe4vsPNVM7ERT8aZFw4wi4dfxrWnLUa57UDazHz SYGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=5sH88xtoc4HFS6NEO73AdH4QekdLFZ+KZGWKBnz/jxw=; b=hf7bla/Axj9Oher/xmJxEPok7p/brNJTfnj/WpsIKJcXBZrSU9hRu2tyfA+wSH353X rDfPjdETyvv9pz2G/YT5bJAPhCC7XkLOLoEq+Gw8VKzzDZr73Z7qtMq9HWQho8mO9oE8 wNGBXqvO4FaFqB1sH9S2QG8pxiNq72AzNeMRJs890HSkmBZN09NLNljzXRai9/JLWeBy ze336cu44Zy7GvWOgE+rBkwXI6ketvaaA4GF9XkesemTmWFNuEq1W3ZA4zh23xQ6RSuK LN207t7v2w9Utyak6ET5VQ1qHW6nCIZx6/DBFl1GH2rFHmZY/9K7iPU1Fz/Y+SADqMCp JD4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbnWvLDbccz45pOYrbFf73Ubr3UaB2O5//OIxgh85+q8l0mGe6j +1W7lrv8JiwRAQOK0hgsKUo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Uzxsmax+V3sisuNLR2Cw9Uu+fWPL/LUCNGS0U6tIbQNt74IEtBUZNhlp+uirIgyfl41G6DuQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:d5e:: with SMTP id 30mr19237529pgn.54.1544641989694; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 89sm30569262pfl.120.2018.12.12.11.13.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C1B3969-EAFC-4F2C-8B57-B7DC44371768"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:13:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , Adam Roach , Tools Team Discussion , "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" To: Sandy Ginoza References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:13:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3C1B3969-EAFC-4F2C-8B57-B7DC44371768 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sandy, > On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >=20 > Hi there, >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old = documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests = =E2=80=9Cwe want a significant visual distinction between the old docs = and the v3 docs.=E2=80=9D OK, but it would be nice to convert as many of the old pdf only RFC to = text version. Suggestions? Bob >=20 > Sandy >=20 >=20 >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>=20 >> Adam, >>=20 >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>> Brian, >>>>=20 >>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >>>>> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no = surprise, >>>>> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. >>>> I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, = wasn=E2=80=99t there a project to do this? >>>>=20 >>>> What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in = the past. >>>=20 >>> My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form contain = items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current ASCII-only = format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters that are not = part of ASCII [e.g., =C2=A2], etc). It's probably worth revisiting this = effort after the new format tools are in production, since they will = likely clear out several such barriers. >>=20 >> I was looking at RFC51. While it could be done with some mix of = creative ascii art, using the new format tools might be better. It = would be a good test of the new tools. >>=20 >> Bob >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>> /a >>=20 >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>=20 >> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org >> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >>=20 >> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues >> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >=20 --Apple-Mail=_3C1B3969-EAFC-4F2C-8B57-B7DC44371768 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAlwRXcMACgkQrut0EXfn u6jZcggAowjEtgH6FKIuI6e0UHN0ChmJsz80Y3ZK67qbsQpvv1zCteQ5gicTXwn/ vr6iLU3toa3u1lJtess8w+uqfW+aInHmITuA7wl0YmiQlwIQ/CU9gZcXxNaU9fm/ YK16NuVOv1gEVDg7zsTP4L49Cgey1+9PpZRAM4GPYAKsj3tK73iyICJar7XJE7jO V9J2jdA+RIhTsZCVRBOxqLtXU971omXC5yqMxfGxkKqwW4wpBch5uDb4n3uyS3kH dG0Z9PNgNWC3S5w11klM0kVLd3cFJEmFF45+OWNIetsHLJ3i4vcvoynartxFqnpL rCqMv/KridHbzIoyNhoKZU1BZRgShw== =SF9y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3C1B3969-EAFC-4F2C-8B57-B7DC44371768-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 11:44:30 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B50F13125B for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 IHoNKSixYoxD for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6C4C130F2C for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52F61C39F3; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:43:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qi6Y_gOzo9zG; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro-2.local (c-71-231-216-10.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.231.216.10]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62ED61C2B57; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:43:44 -0800 (PST) To: Bob Hinden , Sandy Ginoza Cc: Adam Roach , Tools Team Discussion References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> From: Heather Flanagan Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:23 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:44:29 -0000 On 12/12/18 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Sandy, > >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> I’m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests “we want a significant visual distinction between the old docs and the v3 docs.” > OK, but it would be nice to convert as many of the old pdf only RFC to text version. Suggestions? HI Bob, The original transition plan was fairly explicit that we wouldn't be touching/republishing any of the old RFCs. This decision was made in part to respect the "do not change once published" mandate and to respect the resource limitations of the RPC and the community. Also, I don't believe trying to convert the old PDFs into the new PDF format is at all straightforward, and would not help debug anything about the tools or the process. Perhaps you are suggesting something else? -Heather > > Bob > > >> Sandy >> >> >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> >>> Adam, >>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>>> Brian, >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >>>>>> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, >>>>>> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. >>>>> I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, wasn’t there a project to do this? >>>>> >>>>> What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few in the past. >>>> My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form contain items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current ASCII-only format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters that are not part of ASCII [e.g., ¢], etc). It's probably worth revisiting this effort after the new format tools are in production, since they will likely clear out several such barriers. >>> I was looking at RFC51. While it could be done with some mix of creative ascii art, using the new format tools might be better. It would be a good test of the new tools. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> /a >>> ___________________________________________________________ >>> Tools-discuss mailing list >>> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>> >>> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org >>> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >>> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >>> >>> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at >>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues >>> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org From nobody Wed Dec 12 11:53:32 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6616813126C for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 EzWR7BFKBzeh for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (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 5342D13125F for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id z23so9099607plo.0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=uPVodv+211BAxHt9bLxRltIpqGgfgMqm1WY08lZihm0=; b=BfFoENeyJvAtCxElrA1DNCnjbhsnv+V1VuJ6SU3IMSNK4zTtMVzXKo7tWGlfuo1ANl 42I2xoPfzbjReGls5H6btYctVRhRbcNxw0bIOxFEBqxVgNzVa35AQcAo3qJy8ImZiUfB tKg8a0a33psYtT10YDUsY77AI8Q5zObwb/IHXPJKJJTUJDsSWB+MZBNe9MeXynQNQWOM C19KbolTrAJUkaIPsT09TwF+UKGZDfS1hvFRd1EdFkypQla1O0NyyHqzDiC3v6gcd5/I z5NKoIlAI0+IxJV9pBfsu2DMsYIeH75wE1VtOST8InGxLKOYbbqXg27+wDGVtMcG2Tm9 Ydcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=uPVodv+211BAxHt9bLxRltIpqGgfgMqm1WY08lZihm0=; b=J3UvE+t+CmH9sBI/QqoZhKigz6RtyB8ZMz8yBoVKRcSV9050Vk7m2bXjeSz1hAoyfS FMM+Tw9VOKIguoZZGRz3lLYuCYMY5tdiqr5AipUgq6NJmN6+F435nsRRgBPhu9jpwcJA nCo5Q1EHQigt0FE0Z0S8Xz+yDcxg2GzOKNuOKenRGAHf5AhFMOZ7Z4xEWXABeW9ESckY EEmEjxD/VPcNEzboULB3nPTBeLP+RMUuIK78GdgVOewABnFT2IwH+KKS9TNwDOUXRQ7H rI+tBTlSgegWJvTtTaL39KztKerE3M0je0eOfM66HHhrK3dwCAQ7O3U2CJRxC0aLG/lM Gggw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY6JW2mkq+P5ZneBWt3O0p2ptnOdr/V7SSnALK/ce7dvWxv7hP3 +A9C7Qn6Go8PnaIeByl1oPs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WqTCReSXBVEbcxt6lKej2mKYc/wzMS4zdp8auIFcXdXUtxQaAbohHwMm4wR7GES0x0z1hdug== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:74c1:: with SMTP id f1mr20607591plt.273.1544644406725; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u29sm24409268pgn.23.2018.12.12.11.53.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <7284BE28-C09F-4D1C-A05C-EDBB50119F0D@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7EE290A4-85C5-4D02-B30D-2E42B0C34B98"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:53:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: Cc: Bob Hinden , Sandy Ginoza , Adam Roach , Tools Team Discussion To: Heather Flanagan References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:53:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7EE290A4-85C5-4D02-B30D-2E42B0C34B98 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Heather, > On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Heather Flanagan = wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 12/12/18 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Sandy, >>=20 >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi there, >>>=20 >>> I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old = documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests = =E2=80=9Cwe want a significant visual distinction between the old docs = and the v3 docs.=E2=80=9D >> OK, but it would be nice to convert as many of the old pdf only RFC = to text version. Suggestions? >=20 >=20 > HI Bob, >=20 > The original transition plan was fairly explicit that we wouldn't be = touching/republishing any of the old RFCs. This decision was made in = part to respect the "do not change once published" mandate and to = respect the resource limitations of the RPC and the community. Also, I = don't believe trying to convert the old PDFs into the new PDF format is = at all straightforward, and would not help debug anything about the = tools or the process. Many of the other old paper RFC have been converted to text. There are = a few that have not been. This isn=E2=80=99t changing the "do not change once published=E2=80=9D = mandate, in that the original was never online in the first place. For = example RFC 8 was handwritten. I was not suggesting that all of the pre = =E2=80=9Cnew format=E2=80=9D RFCs should be republished, but I think we = should complete the conversion of the old paper RFCs so they can be = searched. Adam suggested that we the new format tools might give us = better tools to do this. Bob >=20 > Perhaps you are suggesting something else? >=20 > -Heather >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> Bob >>=20 >>=20 >>> Sandy >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Bob Hinden = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Adam, >>>>=20 >>>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 12/12/18 09:27, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: >>>>>>> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no = surprise, >>>>>>> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. >>>>>> I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, = wasn=E2=80=99t there a project to do this? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> What happened to that? I am willing to help, I had done a few = in the past. >>>>> My recollection is that the few that remain in PDF-only form = contain items that cannot be trivially reproduced in the current = ASCII-only format (e.g., hand-drawn diagrams, typewritten characters = that are not part of ASCII [e.g., =C2=A2], etc). It's probably worth = revisiting this effort after the new format tools are in production, = since they will likely clear out several such barriers. >>>> I was looking at RFC51. While it could be done with some mix of = creative ascii art, using the new format tools might be better. It = would be a good test of the new tools. >>>>=20 >>>> Bob >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> /a >>>> ___________________________________________________________ >>>> Tools-discuss mailing list >>>> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>>>=20 >>>> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org >>>> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >>>> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >>>>=20 >>>> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues >>>> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_7EE290A4-85C5-4D02-B30D-2E42B0C34B98 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAlwRZzQACgkQrut0EXfn u6hrTQf8DlM1OZYOCOjhR5D+JfpHEb5RP4oN3Kt6kVwA0K3lrvT8wsjOfjhp4iBn zoXcSCr0iz3SFNmdj1f1Gq10c7b2msxSNrnKu+LilTtVXWQ9oa6MwUC2d6geiyTn gI33TiFXSneb2EaeRN0h0KWA009XyGiic7l3voWW1Lzu2rWrKRPf6rhH0fYbYvyq 8gqzNRSCLuxg0kgmEzMJK7oJ0j6M4xXF1lQwH6ZKcmURuoCcQeHtkUpA5AazDQNx tknkn566Lb04N830Wz529hakuoLspUXrJ8jfAsZk8LuqPMf+R6YwWk5YoM6MxVVn H61LpVM7LWp/beLYCegvPafrzq13zw== =rCdX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7EE290A4-85C5-4D02-B30D-2E42B0C34B98-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 12:13:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B23C13128F for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:13:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 twtfoA7eKgrW for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7116C13128D for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151832008D; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EDFAADF7; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA0BD26; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:13:41 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor cc: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <87wooeq1wb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <87wooeq1wb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:13:48 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only: > > 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise, > > but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible. > > This *is* susprising to me. I see that some of these are scans of > handwritten documents or drawings :/ If we can't convert these PDFs into > text/plain and text/html formats, it would be good to at least provide a > redirection. Some decades ago I helped input one of these. It was the ASCII<->EBCDIC document. It was naturally impossible to represent in ASCII :-) The non-ASCII EBCDIC characters were written in during a felt-tip-pen on the copy I had :-) I recall punting back to the RFC-editor at the time, and I guess they did something. I see that they found a solution, and there is an ascii version too. The https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc183.pdf is the original scanned copy. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAlwRa/UACgkQgItw+93Q 3WX5kQf/Tc/0L7q1AmJlJyQ/R9/6MJCro3c2u+I82lXXymguZtLdAWJ7JxAUMUuR lG/D1c449qjxdFdUfvrkWFFGMuKqCih+3VaeVzuPzuP2KoFGjJvTi2KRrAXY688t X1b3ZpBALTAgMsXTGwnHctaPWv4DLg4IXiXs6MVeoZfdp6G4EsGUccTzRcXH8eMN pQZKCNr7PPIpkQ5q0hJCoZXYsT10RON1eKW471DHlw8HxI7E+uGGyQUzdV6c7TkL /ryzZNMLE+I72f/8JQKV+p9nGDYKeH2jVn+xfMM6AEwb4zwepibMPErawqctT9om h2JSLVRpLfsJW3KO0qjvJtXW7eAPUg== =AH2z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Wed Dec 12 14:00:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCAE1312E0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:00:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.679 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com 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 NYUJTqOrG0HO for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:00:47 -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 6ECB31312DB for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from Orochi.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBCM0Mpn038789 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:00:22 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1544652025; bh=aYuPA//KRux6ytWwztqDyn84vbvkP6+mpQ3VWN4bkNI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=mG7TXg6ZZnYlz/z028IFrH070kwW07FEW5moGNENdTOKFYWjSU/+5wHEW1u+YLiRF Gcd2JxUE0ceB6lq8iw+FN/OwwzhmEVZlcm9PvCLVgFiCWfOcyJb5+lzcOpq2MlYufn gPoitA69xROAdgUIbWN5HpbKFdp+aHiOjKNI8GvA= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.roach.at To: Bob Hinden , Heather Flanagan Cc: Sandy Ginoza , Tools Team Discussion References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> <7284BE28-C09F-4D1C-A05C-EDBB50119F0D@gmail.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:00:16 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7284BE28-C09F-4D1C-A05C-EDBB50119F0D@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:00:49 -0000 On 12/12/18 13:53, Bob Hinden wrote: > Heather, > >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Heather Flanagan wrote: >> >> >> On 12/12/18 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> Sandy, >>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> I’m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests “we want a significant visual distinction between the old docs and the v3 docs.” >>> OK, but it would be nice to convert as many of the old pdf only RFC to text version. Suggestions? >> >> HI Bob, >> >> The original transition plan was fairly explicit that we wouldn't be touching/republishing any of the old RFCs. This decision was made in part to respect the "do not change once published" mandate and to respect the resource limitations of the RPC and the community. Also, I don't believe trying to convert the old PDFs into the new PDF format is at all straightforward, and would not help debug anything about the tools or the process. > Many of the other old paper RFC have been converted to text. There are a few that have not been. > > This isn’t changing the "do not change once published” mandate, in that the original was never online in the first place. For example RFC 8 was handwritten. I was not suggesting that all of the pre “new format” RFCs should be republished, but I think we should complete the conversion of the old paper RFCs so they can be searched. Adam suggested that we the new format tools might give us better tools to do this. Right. Looking, e.g., at the RFC 58 that Bob cited, on a quick skim, I see the use of ⊃, ⊕, ⊖, ←, π, and Θ, as well as several superscripted and subscripted numbers. To be clear, no one is proposing republishing old RFCs. The suggestion here is that, for those older RFCs that were not converted as part of the original "RFC-Online" project (presumably due to difficulties expressing them in the format that was then available), we might accept submissions from volunteers who want to make further progress on that effort now that the format is more amenable to doing so. I'm not married to this proposal, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page before we rule such an effort out of scope. /a From nobody Wed Dec 12 14:28:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E03131283 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 85emb5Wl2ko4 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 93E091312F5 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id g9so22704plo.3 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=laAk2YCcd0ZXDNxRbTILl3ti0CbTuHUd/fH/vSQ3/oE=; b=PgeFZec1FjBiow0rJS7KDQhsNE5TA8eb2CFzbQSERxyDDQF/MJgBx5hD/LTpJKTqqh z42juNt39IUnsirQABlHQmRV04jNy/vlu9ybccNezUC3uWPOohFvQZjBZpB9JYfa/w0Y tNQVZn3QoDFpP+Jx08g7BymY1OIyeQpV4QVo74syEslI+FQZ6R8eOeJ6NHHF2ygvOoYD v7iDDnFT+W8MHIaUBVCBdYtY4u0JGkbm7/Nj7Ip9viQ/Y0M+GcfXYo2FNaZX/X0avIfi IARpNL1gO7cso/kVYC2W4WYmjiG4l3RcCLpENnKhRjLbhoet/RsPXX5WXQ2saGquRV69 JCFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=laAk2YCcd0ZXDNxRbTILl3ti0CbTuHUd/fH/vSQ3/oE=; b=ecx9FcQ4FWcTGjJAqL90VwduZbQiqulQPJrpPAnoVtDgGvCIyPB3KLdelOeYtLhz5W 79GtfwZ37nqWbceILKg7N3Ly0+rP0f8Vxw/Bu693oNJ21GoHqcoL2PkqsQph8RENnTvV XjmY7O/nl9RLiar7zV+dJjLlnv88399UjQSuHdffT89F4Qae09KH4BAYhaMOacWwZ03G h+jG6yeUY7JA9+/j2DIiTiKRm6V9VNBRs5hBqEdUbQh1JJE9IKo87aon/zdGTQPbxqwx MiMwwLQfYcjSrwakHU6vUCeWM4qF7dLUjAc4x+uQpB9OqpQm6+xOM58J6SBK4/xQmhf9 BqFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWalHvu69MJkR4lEAOrFQoPVKeK1jwaxypozR1E8bxEUTFfJJYvm d+lBstMtSye5jFLvUDR2LuA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XzNM2paE0dfm7ogMbu2jndMgGMCr6w740seX9WtQl7gsDNmbEEY+sQmwGgDPLedsutwWSK+w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a83:: with SMTP id 3mr20056747plp.276.1544653692044; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm27936pgd.32.2018.12.12.14.28.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:11 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <0937070E-1577-46C1-A20B-812960393EC2@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_518FF0F3-8030-43A0-AC3D-BA8D8E9B839F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:28:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: Cc: Bob Hinden , Heather Flanagan , Sandy Ginoza , Tools Team Discussion To: Adam Roach References: <87sgz3rffk.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <3542348f-195f-c2e7-0c64-66d561e4f0aa@gmail.com> <5836962E-17D1-4D63-94FD-5A4534F8001C@gmail.com> <8a30adf7-b5ee-bd62-9e3a-9f6278185164@nostrum.com> <211FD499-C8FC-414F-AA2B-DA588C203CC8@amsl.com> <00261060-2EC8-4FC4-923B-F5A79B194815@gmail.com> <7284BE28-C09F-4D1C-A05C-EDBB50119F0D@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued" X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:28:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_518FF0F3-8030-43A0-AC3D-BA8D8E9B839F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Dec 12, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Adam Roach wrote: >=20 > On 12/12/18 13:53, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Heather, >>=20 >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Heather Flanagan = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 12/12/18 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>> Sandy, >>>>=20 >>>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Sandy Ginoza = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi there, >>>>>=20 >>>>> I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to use the v3 tools to recreate old = documents. In speaking with Heather (added to the thread), she suggests = =E2=80=9Cwe want a significant visual distinction between the old docs = and the v3 docs.=E2=80=9D >>>> OK, but it would be nice to convert as many of the old pdf only RFC = to text version. Suggestions? >>>=20 >>> HI Bob, >>>=20 >>> The original transition plan was fairly explicit that we wouldn't be = touching/republishing any of the old RFCs. This decision was made in = part to respect the "do not change once published" mandate and to = respect the resource limitations of the RPC and the community. Also, I = don't believe trying to convert the old PDFs into the new PDF format is = at all straightforward, and would not help debug anything about the = tools or the process. >> Many of the other old paper RFC have been converted to text. There = are a few that have not been. >>=20 >> This isn=E2=80=99t changing the "do not change once published=E2=80=9D = mandate, in that the original was never online in the first place. For = example RFC 8 was handwritten. I was not suggesting that all of the pre = =E2=80=9Cnew format=E2=80=9D RFCs should be republished, but I think we = should complete the conversion of the old paper RFCs so they can be = searched. Adam suggested that we the new format tools might give us = better tools to do this. >=20 > Right. Looking, e.g., at the RFC 58 that Bob cited, on a quick skim, I = see the use of =E2=8A=83, =E2=8A=95, =E2=8A=96, =E2=86=90, =CF=80, and = =CE=98, as well as several superscripted and subscripted numbers. To be = clear, no one is proposing republishing old RFCs. The suggestion here is = that, for those older RFCs that were not converted as part of the = original "RFC-Online" project (presumably due to difficulties expressing = them in the format that was then available), we might accept submissions = from volunteers who want to make further progress on that effort now = that the format is more amenable to doing so. >=20 > I'm not married to this proposal, but I want to make sure we're all on = the same page before we rule such an effort out of scope. +1 Bob >=20 > /a --Apple-Mail=_518FF0F3-8030-43A0-AC3D-BA8D8E9B839F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAlwRi3kACgkQrut0EXfn u6isPwgAnyqSL1OORuOWrMnWLyDrgXII03F06w8Quw0REpjigzL0T2zxU0qcFqjM QoPygN69hJ45DNKJwZEHqV/7y1CUTYN95fqDNRZlARomDDUsjkePhK1sLFKCZSwZ c5vN2Q8TbFlYux4pajEFm8FyTIWkKRHU1wjSzP81WNFg1qPXm353wKmB+r+PCPOq xIV9Zilq00nVEZVveO+YJh4E3mGIotSLQV0p6uZqFHVQsbxqWTHNes4/1f4EYOtx NxgYUYyv6YSngc0MqEBaHUpm7g5EkuYAHnIbR9G4fJRSDbLrZaDg95YQcSMVlwRT OP++W4VF/59yKazFyjxhe5pXYJc9Nw== =Wd/H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_518FF0F3-8030-43A0-AC3D-BA8D8E9B839F-- From nobody Thu Dec 13 07:30:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABFD124408 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 rvz_16pKBKZi for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5DF126C7E for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-37-140.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([94.254.37.140]:55678 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gXSwF-00013z-9y; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:30:12 -0800 To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , tools-discuss@ietf.org References: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> <87y38uq1zf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> From: Henrik Levkowetz Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:30:03 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y38uq1zf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mAi7KAg2i8gSpDCG77GwERbFu7H4pH1sg" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.254.37.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:30:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --mAi7KAg2i8gSpDCG77GwERbFu7H4pH1sg Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="mUWCT2W9J5AbkRTwkmIhHDO4sSuk7Ob8Q"; protected-headers="v1" From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions References: <87k1kfreuc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <6bb0b2f1-fcfa-6b30-83b1-444e6c0599cd@levkowetz.com> <87y38uq1zf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> In-Reply-To: <87y38uq1zf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> --mUWCT2W9J5AbkRTwkmIhHDO4sSuk7Ob8Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Daniel, On 2018-12-12 15:00, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > hi Henrik-- >=20 > thanks for the quick feedback! >=20 > On Wed 2018-12-12 00:31:01 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >=20 >> I'll respond to all 3 DC\..* subject emails in one, as the response is= >> pretty much the same: The underlying code is quite old, varying from >> 10 to 15 years old by this time, and did not (and does not) have any o= f >> the sophisticated data available which we have today through the >> datatracker database. It does not have the ability, for instance, to >> differentiate between author sets for different versions of the docume= nt. >=20 > i see, thanks. >=20 >> Rewriting the code today to fetch information from the database instea= d >> would give much better results. That's not on the table at present, b= ut >> is something I might spend some time on when all the xml2rfc and idnit= s >> rewrite deliverables are out, and I've recovered. Maybe in the spring= =2E >=20 > thanks for that timeline! >=20 > fwiw, i don't see a way to use the datatracker's web interface to get > metadata about older drafts either :/ Two approaches: Eyeballs; go to the history tab for the draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dkg-dprive-demux-dns-http/history/= Machine readable; fetch the json blob for the draft (there's also a more complex API that will let you get at practically all the data in the data= base, see datatracker.ietf.org/api/): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dkg-dprive-demux-dns-http/doc.json= > Is access to the datatracker's database public (either via RESTful API > or some other mechanism)?=20 Yes, see a brief description at datatracker.ietf.org/api/. I've just add= ed a description of the simplified document json to that page in my source tree, too; that will be part of the next datatracker release. > Should i be pursuing the kind of larger > search/scan capabiities i'm trying to build via > datatracker-project@ietf.org (or somewhere else) instead of > tools-discuss@ietf.org? Either is fine by me; talking about it on this list will make the info you elicit available to more people. >> However, with respect to author information for old RFCs and drafts, t= he >> datatracker also has missing information. In a different context it h= as >> recently been discussed whether to try to manually fill in the gaps in= >> that information. The format of early drafts and RFCs are sufficientl= y >> irregular that I don't see anything but manual data entry as workable.= >=20 > There aren't all that many early drafts and RFCs, so i think manual dat= a > entry isn't unreasonable. If everyone reading this list pitched in and= > did data entry for 10 or 20 documents, we'd probably be able to fill in= > the gaps.=20 Agreed :-) > is there a way that we can let people actually do that data > entry so that it's useful for everyone else? At the moment, the datatracker doesn't have an open interface where peopl= e could update meta-information. Let Robert and me think a bit about the b= est approach to this. > Again, i can do all this stuff by hand, for my own projects, or i can d= o > it so that it's useful for everyone. Understood. The latter is of course better, but will involve a bit of wo= rk for me and maybe Robert, too. That's perfectly fine and appropriate. Best regards, Henrik --mUWCT2W9J5AbkRTwkmIhHDO4sSuk7Ob8Q-- --mAi7KAg2i8gSpDCG77GwERbFu7H4pH1sg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEifjc5+rnL1MJBcZSTptXS4+7FxoFAlwSevsACgkQTptXS4+7 FxpAcg/+OvYZssA0JK+y0BU+vQQeXG4Fxki5a/ccfXgAB9KAfVZqllSWa778eQGq p7tV1hoMy7wFlalJSmBbTlonv9kiJoo/LnjtD7m9ifbzu3Cdyb3NWc24KOUzIuXl 6zhZdsWdZCvEdVODUXRyl+PKRCLy7XWi0R8P7Skl+EWKdvmPYzpZ7oj1ylu82DJd mOg6ZrX8Wo1z8Zq+ZqICS5ZmDnfrxP1P+akpXaaDNi6/iSEPrDPdVwHF1tjuhAG1 2DLkwvVeEJpK4m2CCXTiiNXjMl5xXh7AKAL16ExWRW8n0/oLDpY45C+KYT073MTh JZ0Q5NpYUurG0HlMojt+b2V3KCuJz02DbEV/GZgVZD6lRJ1gYqm5aUB+x8Ocy2de JmzmbwWPbm1X7QX9vBvur3GxPuu7p1P82++tbyniZzU5drjgONNIkgZzekL4XHLb v7/rgoi3qsSKNzKo+H4q0gSbZo8xJz1Giiv0eB5UeAQOZRmZOMDUbM0NbHl22P7K /3dPHUgs04wBnCDZkz1RkNVyHhhOXTl1v3CMNkX/kPe1V8R13LDtYo7UGUJo50Zo pRAVupOvLDO1NQ//h4CgAr3mY+r4RnohbeNe6mE4ZUW3p0zUArDfbAbYQ96b0d8j skIDGDiXnFGtw9DvT4HPAB1IxFN90XFt3AZ2YLxPGROM9anPxEw= =+kNP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mAi7KAg2i8gSpDCG77GwERbFu7H4pH1sg-- From nobody Thu Dec 20 15:30:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AED1131054 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:30:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 O6OTDK84GiJt for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2018C130EE1 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.32.60.127] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBKNTKF7068312 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:29:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.127] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "Tools Team Discussion" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:30:25 -0800 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.3r5579) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Large gap between columns in recent draft diffs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:30:31 -0000 Greetings again. I think this change likely happened recently, but rfcdiff output now puts a large blank gap between the two sets of pages, making left-right comparison more difficult. This happens on both Firefox and Chrome. If this could be reverted, it would make reading the diffs easier. --Paul Hoffman From nobody Thu Dec 20 16:06:42 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E7F131294 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:06:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 3zyBIf7WXy26 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA74713128E for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-37-140.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([94.254.37.140]:53239 helo=[192.168.1.127]) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ga8Kr-0005RQ-No; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:06:38 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Henrik Levkowetz X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16B92) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:06:26 +0100 Cc: Tools Team Discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <66F89830-9BA4-44D5-9ECB-B1942480073E@levkowetz.com> References: To: Paul Hoffman X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.254.37.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik@levkowetz.com, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Large gap between columns in recent draft diffs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:06:41 -0000 The reason could be a long line in the input. For debug I'll need an example= . Henrik > On 21 Dec 2018, at 00:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: >=20 > Greetings again. I think this change likely happened recently, but rfcdiff= output now puts a large blank gap between the two sets of pages, making lef= t-right comparison more difficult. This happens on both Firefox and Chrome. >=20 > If this could be reverted, it would make reading the diffs easier. >=20 > --Paul Hoffman >=20 > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >=20 From nobody Thu Dec 20 16:38:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CD2130E99 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:38:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NgdDaok_R8DX for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9B2130EEC for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.32.60.127] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBL0bLfJ072423 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:37:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.127] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "Henrik Levkowetz" Cc: "Tools Team Discussion" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:38:27 -0800 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.3r5579) Message-ID: <67A817EB-3A76-40FF-9202-19363E90BAAF@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <66F89830-9BA4-44D5-9ECB-B1942480073E@levkowetz.com> References: <66F89830-9BA4-44D5-9ECB-B1942480073E@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Large gap between columns in recent draft diffs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:38:32 -0000 On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > The reason could be a long line in the input. Yes, found it. Other drafts still work fine. Thanks! --Paul Hoffman