IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 27 May 2022 15:52 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 033BFC0713EC for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653666748; bh=gPLwuJ/W4mGocJR7DH9z8r6wY9nWVlJPa84YREFqojM=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=RbyaDvCytoBlNob8iRk/wCnjsm5C+nY3BirhQxbTtg4V7X97FIMRIwMZBIjPGPpl4 k3dE0sj5K0Qd3aLPPzEzMnZ461GLzsru6hi7sd9N4HykT5PZMrZS6W/iwPC+VxwzDw 3+iv9rYDsw1WxQs+NS9HltsXXNhd3fYFMyPa57Mc=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Fri May 27 08:52:27 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36BFC185144; Fri, 27 May 2022 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653666747; bh=gPLwuJ/W4mGocJR7DH9z8r6wY9nWVlJPa84YREFqojM=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=krIT/mXkfUu5pLCYTAN1nwqwKvYYkedcXhnMfoN+ZBYmfbAFCCO9pjXvzxyGP4gVn 9uhkModkTSNuxNDaZ7F48awy7IXfId7QIH8nCNr5ZwPJm98OVwJknygAWCwPQiLlO2 f2sOmJOOq+qLToQDFrMt9yTFdHYW3oJAmgQF4iZc=
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 83EFBC18514C for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=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, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" 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 aRpCt6gCBj3S for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 08:52:23 -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 3C4A6C16551C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 May 2022 08:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361DC38DB4; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:06:56 -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 utMSQlGn0IbV; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF33B38DB3; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1653667614; bh=GdLoQmxTM0nPEC6P4eqw+VhfJ5rRSjHWsBkLTX9w7yo=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=benFZ87NQbKvkgsmJHT977KqsrDAjAD7QKFnyAc9S+CEB5B6Qx6j7/SjwECKU1k95 w/7aenQ9QUyhItTGRF1yqr7cQbnB22X6+ji8D7muFqQGGzNh/ZHpGX9Wa8+8IiycK3 YxHYwZHm1cNxLFIgPzJyr+4b7RPpmsb4kjrCQTv0yuqjtZ3xNZwA8z1AfmUewoHk66 Iw88rrcIaq5IEENWZL04jz1IOF2LYC48+/TkRwlWXsEuFX+K/v0oEM5Kwcw+dFX5Fr evMFGM0/PiU4MkLyA9htaWzNDJ/qGWfIXw6tphhYJ1Nza7F9rH9Nst/zDaIQRDOsIG Ku/6IIGRunEBg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F263471; Fri, 27 May 2022 11:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <d603174c-db26-4fcb-0a60-a1f8b714c951@taugh.com>
References: <20220525203826.8606A41A4E93@ary.qy> <f0f92d4c-8cc4-c3bb-0f0d-96c3ad422303@gmx.de> <C826D239-7CCB-404E-9591-B33C34ED82C9@tzi.org> <5afe0f29-ab5a-b79e-cad4-7c18cf8fc5d3@gmx.de> <0ab66d2e-aa7d-eb17-83dc-2774e9d021a7@taugh.com> <27659.1653660447@localhost> <d603174c-db26-4fcb-0a60-a1f8b714c951@taugh.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: Fri, 27 May 2022 11:52:20 -0400
Message-ID: <29605.1653666740@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/tGL711Ay5osavFAtWHhD-we6foU>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML
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="===============8298553062760762323=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    >> I looked this up because I was thinking that some of our indexing of AUTH48
    >> drafts might be dealt with if the indexers could be told where the canonical
    >> URL of the document is.

    > The way to keep AUTH48 pages out of search engines is to tell them not to
    > index them.  Earlier this month I helped the RPC update the web site so
    > spiders will skip the authors' directory.  The AUTH48 pages that were already
    > indexed will eventually age out of the search engines.

Yes, that particular mole has been whacked, but I'm just thinking about other
ways/places that RFCs might show up in non-canonical places.    I might post
a copy on a web site devoted to that technology for instance, and it would be
good if it re-inforced rfc-editor.org as the canonical source, rather than
diluted it.

--
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