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

[Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lynne,

We just noticed an oddity and we're wondering if we're doing something
wrong or if it's a bug in the XML to text converter. Specifically, some of
our tables get line breaks in the text representation when they really
shouldn't. For example, table 1 renders as such on author-tools.ietf.org:
| User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0               | user-agent:     |
| (compatible; ExampleBot/0.1;      | ExampleBot      |

In the XML version (and HTML) "ExampleBot" in the second column is on the
same line as "user-agent:". However, as illustrated above, in the converted
text version it's on a new line. This renders the reference plain wrong.

Do you know if we can fix that somehow? Perhaps adding &nbps; to prevent
the converter from breaking the line?

Attached a screenshot for reference.

[image: image.png]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:43 PM Gary Illyes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>>
>