IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 February 2021 07:58 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 DC4303A0D05; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:37 -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 QBiNSxHu9Cfh; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:36 -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 56D303A0D04; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0825FF40705; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:32 -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 3F15FF40705 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:31 -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 ugSfyYeYDfWp for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:27 -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 47E3EF406F2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:58:26 -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 4Dh6XL2Hn8zyRd; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:58:26 +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: <1ca206fd-dfe0-4c23-4161-b5cbd65dd841@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:58:25 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635327905.678663-eb7337cb3d2fc189b854c63d06465434
Message-Id: <9070FA66-ECC7-4C82-8DEF-30CAEE473894@tzi.org>
References: <c6acbb0e-e96a-4b88-9b41-8cc5e03773bc@www.fastmail.com> <1ca206fd-dfe0-4c23-4161-b5cbd65dd841@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2021-02-18, at 07:57, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> The problem with *any* change to the references resources is that if you
> re-generate older specs that use these resources you get a different
> result. (We have a similar issue with other changes to <reference>, such
> as changes to seriesInfo, or even the insertion of DOIs).

Yes, we have that “problem” massively with unnumbered references to I-Ds.
We actually like that problem so much that we have this mechanism in the first place.

If something gets fixed in a shared reference resource, everybody benefits.

It’s a feature, not a bug.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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