[rfc-i] Is there any issue with removing the `<format` element from references served at bib.ietf.org
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 January 2023 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B07C1524CD for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:59:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 0-3s8y4vx2DH for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 C3337C157B53 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 30CFwTIK047305 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:58:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1673539111; bh=zdiogdB2RVoRs2cJuhki6AGBHfjwwNfBQUAlOf/OVms=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=J2kRyQWaZ4GmJ4gelbXhfPP3wcHKufBrycgja1vjjXthtetpaS7MIjWQMIqkEUnFJ fAjf3hqXxHOibN+Vim5GS2zdswhRK/mhuMMQdjcddclr7qpL3NqFPGLGf/z0Gwa1vi UE2Q8+fMYb+tcFqBwROthzdxZ+w5Pssb5aOP62uQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.102]
Message-ID: <dd4d6fb0-b37d-5163-fbb7-22780f04945d@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:58:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/TToRLDqbPDyIsOzCleV36faq1DU>
Subject: [rfc-i] Is there any issue with removing the `<format` element from references served at bib.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:59:27 -0000
All There have been several threads, particularly between Carsten and Julian, that have poked at (and strongly suggested the removal of) the `<format ` element from the bibxml served at bib.ietf.org. There is a request from the RPC at https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/326 to make this so. Is there any reason to continue including it? If not, can we pull together an artifact that we can point to later with why we removed it? RjS
- [rfc-i] Is there any issue with removing the `<fo… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Is there any issue with removing the … Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Is there any issue with removing the … Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rswg] Is there any issue with removi… Carsten Bormann