IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 28 February 2022 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DAF3A12B2; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:56:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 kqWdrBHV8VaM; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2E53A12AF; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C67389BF; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id g95AWTgz5ksp; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:05:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031AE389BE; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:05:35 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1646071536; bh=p+yVfxgkBOwRqJzXmiqiBz0rsQUxi8FVumZ0fSXn6VU=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=nudtUsDpvvRmeWzZrbKzzfOAQQg8zjFbdcUSzbiPmBt7Coptvb4Vto8pFEosNbT4V 8BlDpAQZR8B+BwpVFKO4sGBi/FX8Yh/sxaQCQgyMrTwnYqTGRZTtm0mVFf5+DVxJ6x 7Sp/kGlKpfGRQ0vR9X62fa7S6I6AlyFOYObwYbgRdxnK5wRw0UlG2wDD9mA1SVVSo9 N85VvB4EbJsxnuEdpC3xFAYxJrHsCH07t3vBp71xzHBL23U2Ii/dFK8LNlqhDNafzb wXvazSYwp70ffhahiKVvqU0k5P7iofe5ru75UMplh2yo9ZMBQkgOHTXOXLIuu4sEPZ aPEnfeKj7lTNA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF61CCA; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:56:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: last-call@ietf.org
cc: ted.ietf@gmail.com, draft-koster-rep@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <164606998882.28525.15371769982481176731@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <164606998882.28525.15371769982481176731@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:56:42 -0500
Message-ID: <2597.1646071002@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Ot0GI0ENiLFmmdCsK5XAGGfFimY>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:56:52 -0000

It's good to see robots.txt coming to the IETF.
I think that this is coming via AD sponsorship.  Was there a dispatch
discussion/action that I missed?

I see that the document is Informational.
I'm unclear if this document is identical to the 1996 description, or if
there are changes against the 1996 version.

Are there plans to revise the protocol further, and this is the first step?

I wonder if 2.3.1.2.  Redirects should suggest the file be moved to
/.well-known/robots.txt with a redirect, that perhaps shouldn't be counted.
That would be a change which may be more than desired.

(I was thinking on the weekend about some extensions that would fit nicely
into robots.txt)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email