IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Wrong Internet search results for new RFCs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 04 May 2022 13:46 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 ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658E0C15ED41 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1651671989; bh=hhZKJjF3D4pM/ePdLProP6lG9jr173FxagwWqCfvyJ8=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=Qw4EIgaWj4JJQaCZSsxFCpfnozKl8yABDXt5m/gj+5uS3w6S3wwkoZEWl6qyej4Am ci6xeL+hKNCQPVbfSZnGaNUxReuJjshDK7fuNrRcKJp2afTXn1mM18TM0VEgfVkXRD Memdx0SUz3iBPK1DzplXV8lTaGNvMYz2nTydHrMU=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed May 4 06:46:29 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6718C159490; Wed, 4 May 2022 06:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1651671989; bh=hhZKJjF3D4pM/ePdLProP6lG9jr173FxagwWqCfvyJ8=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=Qw4EIgaWj4JJQaCZSsxFCpfnozKl8yABDXt5m/gj+5uS3w6S3wwkoZEWl6qyej4Am ci6xeL+hKNCQPVbfSZnGaNUxReuJjshDK7fuNrRcKJp2afTXn1mM18TM0VEgfVkXRD Memdx0SUz3iBPK1DzplXV8lTaGNvMYz2nTydHrMU=
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 E6B85C159497 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 06:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I87t8P51jaZh for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (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 9D1A8C159490 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 May 2022 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A8738B58; Wed, 4 May 2022 09:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id WxDLwhA2O488; Wed, 4 May 2022 09:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [172.30.2.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C0138B57; Wed, 4 May 2022 09:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954E3600; Wed, 4 May 2022 09:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <7F237E0E-7170-449D-B530-9BDBDED31EDF@akamai.com>
References: <20220503021720.69EDC3F4BACA@ary.qy> <2f655efd-603b-ebef-bb01-3859571dbd79@nostrum.com> <20129.1651596111@localhost> <5F87F7FD-B3E3-46B3-B03A-EA7BEF58D179@akamai.com> <9711.1651614687@localhost> <7F237E0E-7170-449D-B530-9BDBDED31EDF@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:18 -0400
Message-ID: <22818.1651671978@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/VLW6EMOpJmy1gJHOLDbFeBsBMrU>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Wrong Internet search results for new RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3422553739397315441=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
    >> This is the pre-release rfc-editor AUTH48 copies of RFCs.
    >> We actively don't want it globally accessible!
    >> We might want to go as far as everyone in the WG accessing it.

    > Can you explain why you think this is different than any other draft?

First, I'm all for all of the record being public, and the documents that go
along with them.  I'll point out that the AUTH48 documents mutate in place,
as edits are being made, so if you want a public record, then you need all of
the history.  It's meaningless for a reviewer to see "change X to Y", if they
can never see X.  So, what we really don't want is for some of the contents
to get cached by search engines (or other robots) and not other content.

What we have in the AUTH48 step is essentially a shared, distributed editor.
At present, we don't require authors to make their editor contents public,
only the IDs that they actually post.

Second, the current process is actually really annoying and hard to use.
I'd like for all of it to happen in the form of git pull requests.
At which point, if you wanted to mirror/cache/index that repo, I'd have no
problem with it, because the record would be complete.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide





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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email