IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] RFC editor: wrong rfc-editor/datatracker metadata for rfc2236, rfc3376

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 12 December 2023 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99685C06591F; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:48:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caQe31GOury5; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F21C0900D9; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SqNLw5S2RznkTt; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 16:48:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4SqNLw4br1zkmFP; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 16:48:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 16:48:40 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: pim@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZXiA2CP306sn-SE8@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/z6vuoCN5tNFKWL88d8_Wl1mnj1s>
Subject: [pim] RFC editor: wrong rfc-editor/datatracker metadata for rfc2236, rfc3376
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:48:52 -0000

Dear RFC editor, datatracker tools team

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3376.txt, which i guess/hope is authoritative
claims that it is obsoleting rfc2236. However, all the places where RFC editor
keeps metadata, such as rfc-index.txt says that it updates rfc2236.

Likewise, datatracker metadata does also indicate update instead of obsolete
(which i guess is where RFC editor got its information from). Alas, datatracker
does not allow me to find the draft versions of rfc3376 anymore (opened a datatracker
bug against that) to verify that the source file has been consistently saying obsolete.

In any case, it would be good if this inconsistency was fixed, and datatracker/rfc-editor
metadata was updated to indicate that rfc3376 obsoletes rfc2236.

Thanks
    Toerless

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email