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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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"?

> 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
>>>
>>
>