Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf anddatatracker.ietf / rfc-editor

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[e-mail]>
To: "Mathieu Goessens" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "'Paul Hoffman'"
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf
anddatatracker.ietf / rfc-editor


> Hi,
>
> (I only now became aware of this thread.  Bob Hinden forwarded the original
> message to me, but I didn't note at the time that it was a list message.)
>
> Anyway, here's the story:
>
> The tools site never overwrites existing RFCs, so if it would happen that
> a RFC by mistake had been placed in the RFC Editor's repository with the
> wrong text, any correction put in place after the tools site had done the
> initial download would not be overwritten.  I assumed that's what happened
> here, and moved the first tools out of the way so that a new copy was
> downloaded from the RFC Editor's repository.
>
> I was in a rush at that time, however, preparing for the Saturday code sprint,
> so I didn't take care to make the .pdf and .html copies be regenerated, which
> is of course needed.  Done now, which takes care of the first part of the
> comment below:
>
> On 2011-03-27 03:00 Mathieu Goessens said the following:
> > Thanks to the one who corrected it.
> >
> > The html are pdf version are also wrong:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944
> > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4944
>
> Fixed.
>
> > The drafts are also wrong, both in txt, html and pdf:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13
> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
> > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
> > (I did not check the older versions)
>
> However, this I don't understand.  Drafts are never edited after being
> submitted, so the explanation for how there could be 2 different copies
> of the RFC doesn't apply here.  Furthermore, for the drafts above, I
> don't see links to two conflicting copies -- in which way do you mean
> that the drafts "are also wrong"?
>

Perhaps an XML to RFC issue:-)

Up to -06 (Nov 2006), each packet format was a separate numbered figure.

>From -07, the one line formats at the start of the document were no longer
given the caption 'Figure nn'  but still contributed to the running count of
figure numbers, so the first numbered figure was Figure 7.  This persisted
until -13 after which the RFC Editor put things 'right' in the RFC as published.

Tom Petch




> > Any information about the problem ? It is limited to this RFC or can it
> > appears in some others ?
>
> I've come across I think two previous instances of the tools site grabbing
> an early copy of an RFC, which was corrected before being announced, and I
> handled that in the same way as this case.  The RFC editor's copy is always
> the correct one, the way I see it.  I'm about to do a run across all of the
> RFCs now on tools.ietf.org to see if there are any other cases of this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Henrik
> perpetrator of (almost) all things tools.ietf.org
>
>
> > On 25/03/2011 21:48, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >> [Copying the RFC Editor to let them also check their records]
> >>
> >> Note that the IANA registry is consistent with
> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt
> >>
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >>> Mathieu Goessens
> >>> Sent: 25 March 2011 21:33
> >>> To: Paul Hoffman
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and
> >>> datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor
> >>>
> >>> On 25/03/2011 20:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Mathieu Goessens wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The RFC4944 looks to be different in the version distributed by
> >>>>>
> >> tools.ietf.org
> >>
> >>> and datatracker.ietf.org / rfc-editor.org.
> >>>
> >>>>> The figure 2 looks truncated on the tools.ietf.org version:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt
> >>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you know what is the problem ? Document generation problem ? Where it
> >>>>>
> >>> should be reported ?
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> These two documents were clearly derived from very different sources: the
> >>>>
> >>> page breaks are also quite different.
> >>>
> >>>> How on earth did that happen
> >>>>
> >>> I am not that sure: the page break is different precisely starting from
> >>> this figure.
> >>>
> >>> I was more thinking about a different version of configuration of the
> >>> xml2rfc software.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Mathieu Goessens
> >>> IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France
> >>> Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ietf mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf