IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] why can't we use git? Re: Wrong Internet search results for new RFCs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 04 May 2022 15:37 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 BE130C159523 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1651678654; bh=oSffo9CzcEW0N10CAqniDZzJeh/KfRJNElK3trMe/tk=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=vwijwcXhFQqETTVjJqH0VpHxWrYvDT0bI6cHjuHs3o7Pjpfz6pUHrixURQrFT8oO8 vdb96knenAlbeQStcVFjyBLBQS/wRqN4hPp9Jo2NJquuK2uYBOrTjq+P7IHr2cMnAb jwZmM6qJ2TZc07LORgtXzkDRxqyqL0cA9Qod4eDk=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed May 4 08:37:34 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B98C159486; Wed, 4 May 2022 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1651678654; bh=oSffo9CzcEW0N10CAqniDZzJeh/KfRJNElK3trMe/tk=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=vwijwcXhFQqETTVjJqH0VpHxWrYvDT0bI6cHjuHs3o7Pjpfz6pUHrixURQrFT8oO8 vdb96knenAlbeQStcVFjyBLBQS/wRqN4hPp9Jo2NJquuK2uYBOrTjq+P7IHr2cMnAb jwZmM6qJ2TZc07LORgtXzkDRxqyqL0cA9Qod4eDk=
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 CAD7EC159486 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 08:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 tN2v6N5LoQxM for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 08:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (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 55B9EC157B5E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 May 2022 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307F138B4C; Wed, 4 May 2022 11:50:33 -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 avXcrHIvRne8; Wed, 4 May 2022 11:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F9338B4E; Wed, 4 May 2022 11:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1651679430; bh=hePJx4dtWgB6zzDGAoMjU0MYjlDFBJ0IVLOvvWt5Rso=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=K5LX3+6Fx+g4LfpagPLZSDGmRs72O1PajjUBlYpyRpphT3bKJT/1L6Uyd5sHYMp9k 1wxS9XEozjS5nbJikWrqsZ7Oryzd/kt0f/UBqDuLxUWubl6uyo0Q+LzVDPJKxsEvGN 3OfvQfF9UYx+kP3v4R9EEHh3j4CO1CcXRDa2KaOcySz7pOizbNUsalU5L2zPU1LlEh E7QLdWTtuYk3BiXyH9dfkm/H+WG0FAS3PNY5ZVqn07VTKr6e9FcJSmksmNVc6CV3kg cSvCjBZ/egUdd3uhs6Zi8123E2wA9Gj4d0P+zw/abWL7Ply0DFgOj8RzPGlxuszWC9 2OIHJp2bL1JbA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923FD412; Wed, 4 May 2022 11:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <defeb4c3-06b7-4610-763a-9919ee1ab181@lear.ch>
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> <22818.1651671978@localhost> <defeb4c3-06b7-4610-763a-9919ee1ab181@lear.ch>
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 11:37:22 -0400
Message-ID: <24895.1651678642@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/iR3qlAojRjH1XWEV3Ms2RXbLuoE>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] why can't we use git? Re: 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="===============8533982846830200113=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
    > On 04.05.22 15:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> 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.

    > This is probably worth discussing once the RSWG gets formed. There's a whole
    > work flow tied to all of this that could be reviewed.

Maybe.  I have no opinion about where the responsability to make the decision
lies.  I think that until such a decision is made that we need to address the
immediate issues which were:

1) robots.txt was inaccurate and some bots are caching AUTH48 documents and
returning them in searches.  We all agree that this is wrong and potentially misleading.
John says that this might be fixed.

2) there are obscure crawlers which do not respect robots.txt.  John feels that this
isn't our problem, but I somewhat disagree.  I think that until we have
defined the public workflow, that we should make sure that our current
workflow is actually is as private as authors and editors expect.

--
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