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

[Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>]

I put an xref to RFC 9110 at the first appearance of HTTP in the prose:
https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L180

Updated XML also attached.



On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:13 PM Gary Illyes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sure, makes sense; we can do that. In that case I'll use the latest HTTP
> RFC instead of 1945
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 20:11, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> --
> Thanks,
> Gary
>