Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B99127071 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYzVMEcA9XRp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C951250B8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id e75so102064096itd.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=yjmOPmXGf48sI7DI7TVV+jMKmyYCOG4YLlmEVkT02iI=; b=N8KeVEhBrhM7icwkH4bSFgF8pIuo9y5jFVoPGXqkg+69R0F1lrOAO5YwO44h5y22zB 9d2WiYP9v2WGMML42GGBBOG+hCf/55zziF67ZQrhXf8hawKSWOWnKg6fxdjnINZUjbcK 6ExR+yGHLN9N53cQL1qSSf4Qse5BayD/WhLvo++EOfFm/fbaZ+tNv4K2yJoX9mIk8S4w EoxXgP9jAdK5xrs5BVIIjLX/7MubVby60aDoHmwPG1EXpvL8PenxuqVwAchQq5Oq6Ivy 0DYlz5MGjkBmKUnbOobASjhAy7gRCDYVSkW3PfnG6ZBEZNVPyG02jmtYqDZLNndhXlt5 /McA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=yjmOPmXGf48sI7DI7TVV+jMKmyYCOG4YLlmEVkT02iI=; b=Mbuz3tC0awW1XMe9IOhNPCFERiaJ4EC802ANLYuJGBDR2n9LHDhSZgLlH8A16mOqA8 d6Hjo0+f1J+M8UCOVODwcPbzlzzGz5d+tElqPHjE6VoYJFgUTwbr1bhBmariQp6jlLEa i7GonXk8h1Z3vBrVMVy3ZmRoo9aWGVYD4UD4dC70Ysgrkg0+L2ohFJDOyr+ThPE6Wpk2 yXuHoUUlJgyEpxfQq2yzgTUbu7JEJW1k33kAlgTzghtr9Sn5ntFYE58CQUDZDCW95nrh +CPD8ZSnbKsfcwlgBOag8zNQNKMrY9WuyTJitCcvMtz8tPyjCi+QOmrr0lXoLIqGO4qe 8r6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0tcQUtjZE3VVwcqazWVoSseC6JbCsb3HKr7Jw7FJi+hcFRfdV4UyFMMQoZiVfdMQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.144.132 with SMTP id x126mr603434itd.35.1490823633898; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from t2001067c03700128f5d7507edd3635c6.v6.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c03700128f5d7507edd3635c6.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:128:f5d7:507e:dd36:35c6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 86sm284878iom.58.2017.03.29.14.40.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C48761FC-E4C1-4951-ABF0-162B298135DA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8DEBBD4-3D26-4F19-885F-F23541C422F3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Getting the latest version of an RFC specification
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:40:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CACweHND9_9x7ZBc0_95keKbkQt8bz6YLJBP06qE=y=-S=GNDRg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
References: <94f81f6a-6a34-6587-a4f7-683586c2f436@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND9_9x7ZBc0_95keKbkQt8bz6YLJBP06qE=y=-S=GNDRg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zhY7W9IqEbQt3u5c2t4TBKeK0YU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:40:37 -0000

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 16:19, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29 Mar 2017 21:52, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>> wrote:
> G'day.
> 
> The RFC labeling model is to assign a unique serial number to a static document.  A new version of a spec gets a new serial number. This basic model has the benefit of both simplicity and predictability.
> 
> To this we've added an overlay model, using Obsoletes/ObsoletedBy. This makes it dramatically easier to see that something has been obsoleted and to find its replacement.
> 
> However the seeing and the finding are an essentially manual process. One must go to the online older document, then notice the Obsoleted By tag and then click to follow it.
> 
> Sometimes it would be helpful for the requester to be able to say 'give me the latest' more easily.
> 
> So I'm wondering whether the IETF should consider adding a citation feature for this.
> 
> Something like:
> 
>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822/latest <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822/latest>
> 
> would display the contents of:
> 
>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>
> 
> by having the fetching system automatically traversing the Obsoleted By links in RFC 822 and then RFC 2822.
> 
> Some sort of display banner would flag this, to help the user see that they are getting a different version than they cited.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>
> 
> 
> It sounds good, for the most part, as a quick and dirty tool (though a 30x redirect would probably be better than displaying the ultimate RFC in-place.)
> 
> Out of malign curiosity, what would you expect from: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738/latest <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822/latest> ?

That one is terribly wrong. Generic URL is obsoleted by the telnet URL and the Gopher URL?  And then, after being “obsoleted", it is still updated by three separate RFCs, the latest of which 12 years later?

But there are examples that are properly tagged.  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616> is obsoleted by a series of six RFCs.

Yoav