Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 22 February 2021 19:11 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 0F13C3A1F97; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 aaCD36xAwoqL; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:11:04 -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 1C3B53A1F64; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37727F40790; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:10:53 -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 C6E70F40790 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:10:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
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 VW-7nOH3wXcV for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80DACF40744 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([47.186.1.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 11MJAnlB026930 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:10:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1614021050; bh=63K3SV18h/D/tr5CtxLIJ5nTx0GQst6HumwsT+YJk6A=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To; b=HA/FE8j4Q0p7M82qUpSnzEictp7dZ72h9NkzLSX/ybU5Avb7fqER4hMOVKRA4R+wP jCVheDDKZ288LzL3MmO/dkdT05ea0QWCQV62CYfhZqEIaXl53p+nKDifvVyVEBPin1 5E5l0bn4ks9WwsIUTI2tUNGeFQ4dKVylHaijuHsQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.1.92] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <ca04c9b0-a466-2bdb-7a4b-192ec12fc3fd@gmx.de> <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <3fee246b-7a01-7a4f-cb7a-a548f4040bd1@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:10:44 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2/22/21 2:15 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 22. Feb 2021, at 08:35, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Note that the recommendations are inconsistent, and that the first one
>> (from the web site) adds a link to tools.ietf.org.
> … which has served us well as a landing page for a draft.
>
> People like that page a lot because it has the relevant metadata and links as well as the content of the draft.
>
> (The equivalent data tracker page has more, but less useful and less usefully presented metadata, and it only has the first two pages of the draft, because it was *not* designed to serve as the landing page.)

Minor, but important note - it only shows the first two pages by default 
for concern (at the time it was made) about bandwidth for consumers - 
the site does allow you to control getting the whole draft on that page 
by cookie. I realize that's not useful (or is a negative) for making it 
the URL you might cite. But perhaps we should revisit at least the first 
part of the document cookie and either always serve the whole document 
there, or flip the default to always serve.

That said, the page you are looking for is probably going to be

datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/(whatever)

I am in the middle of significantly changing that to have the same 
information in the header as the draft pages at tools, remove the normal 
datatracker nav menu and tabs, and to follow the same general formatting 
style in what's at tools.


>
> We used to use the tools.ietf.org page as a landing page for citing RFCs as well (or the equivalent in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049.html).
> We now have https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949, which is a landing page, but less useful as it doesn’t have the content.
> (And it still has a link to one PDF software vendor :eyeroll:.)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949 uses metadata.js to turn the original HTML into a basic, but useful landing page as well.

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

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