Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 23 February 2021 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4280B3A2216; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IYUq8H2liu4f; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663113A21E0; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357ABF407CB; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644F5F407C9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGzwBqUSLgdt for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4591BF407C8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dl0Yd5SPRzySM; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 01:39:33 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <7C7234B7EF4B131225B9C92E@PSB>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 01:39:33 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635733573.113942-38a4c5e9d61b34dd034b4b5e4b1d0ef6
Message-Id: <78399BE7-2519-45DA-9FEA-71D92E5549DC@tzi.org>
References: <mailman.1.1614024001.24742.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <7C7234B7EF4B131225B9C92E@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

> 
> I am having trouble completely picturing just what you have in
> mind, but, whatever you do, please keep in mind that references
> from RFCs are supposed to be completely stable.  That means
> that, if I, as author, reference draft-foo-bar-baz-03 at the
> time of RFC publication, wherever the link points should produce
> draft-foo-bar-baz-03 and not its most recent successor, whether
> that is draft-foo-bar-baz-15 or RFC 9999.  

Yes, but the landing page for -03 could have pointers to newer versions (I-D, RFC, Obsoleting RFC, …).

> This is, of course a
> cousin of whether a new I-D or RFC should be referencing the
> same target RFC as the document it is replacing or should be
> referencing the most recent update/replacement for that earlier
> version.  In both cases, heuristics will frequently be wrong.
> It might actually be useful for authors to be able to specify
> "the version we specified, really" versus "most recent version"
> in markup.

Which you already can do in the source for an I-D.  RFC references are frozen, though.

> I'm even a little hesitant about your pointing to the HTML
> version as long as at least some of the html versions are
> synthesized from the text rather than being supplied by authors
> (who have presumably checked them) or generated from xml2rfc v3
> (which is presumably infallible). The synthesis process doesn't
> make serious errors very often, but, in my experience, it does
> make them.

This could easily be fixed.
I did a PoC for that a while ago.
The data collection for the fixer does need some effort; this could be crowd-sourced or done proactively (probably more expensive than we care about this problem).

Grüße, Carsten


_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest