IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrey Zosimov <zosimov@yandex-team.ru> Thu, 07 April 2022 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <zosimov@yandex-team.ru>
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 D07FC3A176D for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.63 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yandex-team.ru
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 JzLTK75Rj6bV for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from forwardcorp1o.mail.yandex.net (forwardcorp1o.mail.yandex.net [95.108.205.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B83503A1765 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vla3-850de775f4df.qloud-c.yandex.net (vla3-850de775f4df.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c15:341d:0:640:850d:e775]) by forwardcorp1o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CD2E62E11C4; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:50:54 +0300 (MSK)
Received: from 2a02:6b8:c0d:3192:0:640:36b7:415c (2a02:6b8:c0d:3192:0:640:36b7:415c [2a02:6b8:c0d:3192:0:640:36b7:415c]) by vla3-850de775f4df.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxbackcorp/Yandex) with HTTP id loTAA70KxW21-osKOOPuM; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:50:54 +0300
X-Yandex-Fwd: 2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex-team.ru; s=default; t=1649364654; bh=BRovxi5BztqPdj2E4+hMn9n2CkyJ+dnrdkchKkXV/V0=; h=Subject:In-Reply-To:Cc:Date:References:To:From:Message-Id; b=gtBNoc4BJ2WE73A8DNSGb7GfqR6psNzK5VeDaeY3zlcn5jG9CnxUZJaBei2hAG0kn wLfCKFH6TiKxdv8LDINpQD29G+85Ch7ebFCh4p19wEe3osI4axOZEARYABeljTXAjV VKJD1+L1/I4PA69p7YbQUrtkBbL8oMjEN08pdmKU=
Authentication-Results: vla3-850de775f4df.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex-team.ru
Received: from vla1-36b7415cbc1b.qloud-c.yandex.net (vla1-36b7415cbc1b.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c0d:3192:0:640:36b7:415c]) by vla3-850de775f4df.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxbackcorp/Yandex) with HTTP id YoT7A70KxSw1-4phpn0Qu for <zosimov@yandex-team.ru>; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:50:44 +0300
Received: by vla1-36b7415cbc1b.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:50:44 +0300
From: Andrey Zosimov <zosimov@yandex-team.ru>
To: Gary Illyes <garyillyes@google.com>, Fabrice Canel <fabrice.canel@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martijn Koster <m.koster@greenhills.co.uk>, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "henner@google.com" <henner@google.com>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lizzi@google.com" <lizzi@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADTQi=cW4=WbaP1QDSK_iWWkd_EnZQCPkwsGDg2mU2zkhMnXBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220228222932.825F33844270@ary.qy> <245C65D2-EC38-4C49-9CA0-3DD687CB37DA@mnot.net> <CA+9kkMAnmoJ0n3mPscZvc6kbyOZjQU78vb+iA0Pw5Qq=_kKZEw@mail.gmail.com> <ee8c0615-9207-cf7a-b1a0-905f33062e7a@taugh.com> <CA+9kkMBn-jJbwKjOdOpLL3PFS0REVUBUoSa+2MD0NxnvttHCcg@mail.gmail.com> <91329874-9301-40EC-8155-FBFE55DB89E4@akamai.com> <618c8f70-3d09-fe09-6088-597b2b63655e@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <3efab652-be64-e179-b387-0468a2da9f1c@taugh.com> <5DCC145C-D887-4184-B8F5-3C00563C620A@akamai.com> <7672C0CA-DED8-45A4-842A-BC5C159DD792@greenhills.co.uk> <CADTQi=ekZ-0ChcJ2F-WTxCRvGRSuPOyygbBuRkDpO39mq0Hykw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa54t0P_ZniVHvMnee1j9g0Rb6j7Rj9LMCUPwPeOEVrcg@mail.gmail.com> <888588E5-D0F2-4BFE-9EBB-68E7C7FC4744@mnot.net> <CADTQi=cW4=WbaP1QDSK_iWWkd_EnZQCPkwsGDg2mU2zkhMnXBA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:50:54 +0300
Message-Id: <26321649363647@mail.yandex-team.ru>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/OyJN_M1sdYA9d0cKERsWiRwttRw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:09:03 -0700
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 20:57:36 -0000

Hi all,
 
The document is OK for Yandex. We have reviewed it along with the way we interpret robots.txt in crawler.
 
   Andrey Zosimov, head of Yandex crawler team
 
18.03.2022, 13:11, "Gary Illyes" <garyillyes@google.com>om>:
Adding to this thread Andrey Zosimov (Yandex) and Fabrice Canel (Bing) to confirm the draft is acceptable for their respective search engines.
 
 
Based on the feedback we received so far, we're not going to  have more changes to the draft other than the boilerplate change discussed in this thread, and the example and language corrections in the ART review.
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 22:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:


> On 16 Mar 2022, at 3:52 am, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the authors are prepared to make this change, I'd like to hear why "IETF Standards Track w/consensus" is (or should be) off the table, especially if other search engines are going to indicate support.

That's reasonable, if support eventuates. If it doesn't, it would be pretty awkward -- I think we'd want at least some level of review or at least acknowledgement by other major implementers before declaring it Standards Track.

AIUI a status change would necessitate another IETF LC, so that might be the best way to solicit that support. Make it a long one to give other implementations a meaningful way to respond -- say, four weeks.

If the IESG doesn't hear from at least two or three other stakeholder implementations (in its estimation), it could still be published at Informational, and transitioned to Standards Track if/when that support eventuates.

Make sense?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.mnot.net/
 
--
Thanks,
Gary

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email