IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Fixing names in references to old RFCs

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Thu, 18 February 2021 20:12 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 CC6383A180A; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:12:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=iJwKqcCD; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ZJcf/O6l
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 emrbYrUGXq6I; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:12:04 -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 5FC593A181E; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E94FF40727; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:58 -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 93301F40727 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=iJwKqcCD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ZJcf/O6l
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 KLIDAjkHoWjg for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C562BF40723 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5425B66; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:11:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:11:57 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=/eNVPdJBDo7/1CeaorWlHbXn6bIq idAzCz6iWjE3Sio=; b=iJwKqcCDmczNmqjxsRObYp5wuYT8B5CyYNjPdxirZ4rR aynifsLMwLYHMZsy8HWBnaWN3miAunh5ET2HwfUafjNbGJvBpkREedrKNMqMeUly Airg8pjyVX8OrvOc80aQSa2G8ybM5ZqTHlBf76in/EBaNA/xa8xd2x7arnlTtS+t 9lK9q4vMqzf4ztwTmhNI5rHgXRoGfqvZTdAB7Jo1nZgj4bDZKAyT+goBx/UgjkpG A7+QuJ99FDVqAIbleg2vsaI7whAd1OAt1BVkNdJv6Dlx8UOKZVvpewPIuz1sJwnO FAjiY16WHwgjQ/ZFvPjgDcj1Oke2cHtDQoB3DFsoAg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=/eNVPd JBDo7/1CeaorWlHbXn6bIqidAzCz6iWjE3Sio=; b=ZJcf/O6lZ/VEMafCTprNC+ zgSGBe2zCxDwMpJ8kz1LntmuuUgERq6QFD26TfPYMKS9iOOQt5bf9m1hTH3nWYlD I9tT68IXlAF0fgAG+dhXXVxWU5oxggWcHTJpdrL6sPq41K+rDxv+wK6wj5ZCHKtD Wxx/qhzoeCpm8r3XaLFQal0bREUWfWN/NS8bMb6QOKzCpoUFqGrTbrDCRvgwCISv R88OUKwP9SFy0+beNHWeOOr5NGamvTBmAl/jUnmCiwojye7Fv0zB3sTlfM3mZ/Vh zbbs6V3BUUPteMjcpRioj8GlzTo8wJucvPG276bEl5gh4cHZ6vnl1biLsEloac7A ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:C8ouYOGnSLhRh6HBFS1ENM8ThPPqLSu0ZIx76TtOpcB1TVRxYslt9Q> <xme:C8ouYPW8JefIZ8ZaAH2TRAcQ5tL2tDSQLtM-cdLDrBOuVvM5ZRUAShsd9nXxI6msZ dKeQxWkRKmh3i67CoE>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrjeeggddufeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:C8ouYILqEfJ3-kYBd5aaCfVsOo95_KgWwFJ5okm1SjKdLftAyZntSw> <xmx:C8ouYIERDVs2Fgqvy86tA-uYp9bJl5O2TRWLGuJ3RTmYXgSY5KtGJw> <xmx:C8ouYEUeer-lV8ho_iPzoHOeqo0H7JAPON-bv-QncD_haKCcMYXzAA> <xmx:DMouYHC5ZiafQlM6HbswwRmBJZtZf5BSx1RIXYtGxvB7feQCejYaSA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE0414E0087; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:11:55 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-141-gf094924a34-fm-20210210.001-gf094924a
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <dfc404a4-1f51-46dd-9234-b139fbb01b9d@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <24210.1613664493@localhost>
References: <c6acbb0e-e96a-4b88-9b41-8cc5e03773bc@www.fastmail.com> <24210.1613664493@localhost>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:11:36 +1100
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Fixing names in references to old RFCs
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 03:08, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     > But we didn't used to.  I have a document that cites an older RFC where
>     > one of the authors had their name mangled.  What do people here think
>     > about correcting the mangling when referencing that document from a
>     > newer RFC?
> 
> I think that you are asking if the reference.RFC.xxxx.xml file should get
> fixed. Others seem to think that you are asking to regenerate the RFC.
> Please clarify.

I was deliberately vague, which has resulting in some productive discussion in various directions.  I need neither.  The document I was talking about is in XML and has complete references inline, not URLs.

I would not have suggested changing the original, immutable document.  Updating references files (reference.RFC.blah.xml) so everyone benefits is a good idea if we decide that a change is appropriate.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email