Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Fair enough.  I wonder though if we should have some kind of link to what
HTTP is anyway, perhaps attached to its first appearance in the prose after
the introduction.  It really is a normative dependency here, even if it is
ubiquitous.

-MSK

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:02 AM Gary Illyes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We could, if there was an RFC that says that clients must follow *at
> least* 5 hops. Unfortunately all I can find is the opposite, follow *up to*
> 5 hops (because more is likely a loop).
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 19:59, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> The new "MUST NOT" is fine.  Rather than deleting it, should we replace
>> the reference to RFC 1945 with a reference to one of the newer HTTP RFCs?
>>
>> -MSK, ART AD
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:39 AM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gary, Lizzi, Martijn, and *AD (Murray),
>>>
>>> * Murray, please let us know if you approve (1) the removal of Normative
>>> Ref. RFC 1945 and (2) a new sentence containing "MUST NOT" in Section 2.2.4.
>>>
>>> Gary, thank you very much for the updated XML files!
>>>
>>> Martijn, your contact information in the Authors' Addresses section now
>>> appears as follows.  Please confirm that this is as desired:
>>>
>>>    Martijn Koster (editor)
>>>    Suton Lane
>>>    Wymondham, Norfolk
>>>    NR18 9JG
>>>    United Kingdom
>>>    Email: [e-mail]
>>>
>>> The latest files are posted here:
>>>
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
>>>
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
>>>
>>> Gary, Lizzi, and Martijn, we have noted your approvals on the AUTH48
>>> status page:
>>>
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
>>>
>>> Thanks again!
>>>
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>
>>>
>>> > From: Gary Illyes <garyillyes=[e-mail]>
>>> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your
>>> review
>>> > Date: August 29, 2022 at 2:41:50 AM PDT
>>> > To: Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>, Henner Zeller <
>>> [e-mail]>
>>> > Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], Ted Hardie <
>>> [e-mail]>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>,
>>> [e-mail]
>>> >
>>> > Thank you. Done on github (
>>> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18)
>>> and attached to this email again.
>>> >
>>> > Henner, we need the last LGTM from you.
>>>
>>>
>>> > From: Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>
>>> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your
>>> review
>>> > Date: August 29, 2022 at 2:01:13 AM PDT
>>> > To: Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>
>>> > Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>>> Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
>>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> >
>>> > Hi Gary,
>>> >
>>> > Please remove my organisation Stalworthy Computing, Ltd  from
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18
>>> >
>>> > The rest LGTM
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > — Martijn
>>>
>>>
>>> > From: Lizzi Sassman <lizzi=[e-mail]>
>>> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your
>>> review
>>> > Date: August 26, 2022 at 12:58:13 PM PDT
>>> > To: Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>
>>> > Cc: [e-mail], Martijn Koster <
>>> [e-mail]>, Henner Zeller <[e-mail]>, Ted
>>> Hardie <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
>>> [e-mail]
>>> >
>>> > The draft LGTM.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Lizzi
>>>
>>> > On Aug 26, 2022, at 7:08 AM, Gary Illyes <garyillyes=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your edits and review. Lizzi and I addressed the
>>> comments received and attached the updated XML to this email (also at
>>> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml
>>> )
>>> >
>>> > The draft attached looks good to me and from my perspective approved
>>> for publication.
>>> >
>>> > Martijn, Lizzi, Henner, please review this draft and provide feedback
>>> (probably on GitHub) and/or approval for publication.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:24 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> >
>>> > Updated 2022/08/25
>>> >
>>> > RFC Author(s):
>>> > --------------
>>> >
>>> > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>> >
>>> > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>> > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>> > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>> > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>> >
>>> > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>> > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>> > your approval.
>>> >
>>> > Planning your review
>>> > ---------------------
>>> >
>>> > Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>> >
>>> > *  RFC Editor questions
>>> >
>>> >    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>> >    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>> >    follows:
>>> >
>>> >    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>> >
>>> >    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>> >
>>> > *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>> >
>>> >    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>> >    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>> >    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>> >
>>> > *  Content
>>> >
>>> >    Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>> >    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention
>>> to:
>>> >    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>> >    - contact information
>>> >    - references
>>> >
>>> > *  Copyright notices and legends
>>> >
>>> >    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>> >    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>> >    (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>> >
>>> > *  Semantic markup
>>> >
>>> >    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements
>>> of
>>> >    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
>>> <sourcecode>
>>> >    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>> >    <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>> >
>>> > *  Formatted output
>>> >
>>> >    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>> >    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>> >    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>> >    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Submitting changes
>>> > ------------------
>>> >
>>> > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
>>> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>> > include:
>>> >
>>> >    *  your coauthors
>>> >
>>> >    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>> >
>>> >    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>> >       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>> >       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>> >
>>> >    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing
>>> list
>>> >       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>> >       list:
>>> >
>>> >      *  More info:
>>> >
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>> >
>>> >      *  The archive itself:
>>> >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>> >
>>> >      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
>>> out
>>> >         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
>>> matter).
>>> >         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
>>> you
>>> >         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>> >         [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list
>>> and
>>> >         its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>> >
>>> > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>> >
>>> > An update to the provided XML file
>>> >  — OR —
>>> > An explicit list of changes in this format
>>> >
>>> > Section # (or indicate Global)
>>> >
>>> > OLD:
>>> > old text
>>> >
>>> > NEW:
>>> > new text
>>> >
>>> > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>> >
>>> > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that
>>> seem
>>> > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of
>>> text,
>>> > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found
>>> in
>>> > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
>>> manager.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Approving for publication
>>> > --------------------------
>>> >
>>> > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>> > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>> > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Files
>>> > -----
>>> >
>>> > The files are available here:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
>>> >
>>> > Diff file of the text:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>> side)
>>> >
>>> > Diff of the XML:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
>>> >
>>> > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>> > diff files of the XML.
>>> >
>>> > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.original.v2v3.xml
>>> >
>>> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>> > only:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.form.xml
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tracking progress
>>> > -----------------
>>> >
>>> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
>>> >
>>> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> >
>>> > RFC Editor
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------
>>> > RFC9309 (draft-koster-rep-12)
>>> >
>>> > Title            : Robots Exclusion Protocol
>>> > Author(s)        : M. Koster, Ed., G. Illyes, Ed., H. Zeller, Ed., L.
>>> Sassman, Ed.
>>> > WG Chair(s)      :
>>> > Area Director(s) :
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > <rfc9309.xml>
>>>
>>> --
> Thanks,
> Gary
>