Re: [rfc-i] some thoughts about errata

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 08 February 2017 15:53 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 77FFD129C09 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:53:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kdQ46ts9Qv5H for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:53:02 -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 02691129BFF for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:53:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A780AB80F68; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:53:00 -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 56D86B80F68 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:52:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 aK5drSp2lRCn for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B02B80F64 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([93.217.64.139]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJFBe-1cYjOC3uLi-002qmg; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:52:43 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20170208152614.14827.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <4cc0cb68-b004-aafa-d91b-d3c6182f1cda@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:52:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170208152614.14827.qmail@ary.lan>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:W8G3m/bbtXkbrRxLhluc38+KXHgmgDxc+NoovH8Xi0Y68p7864u oiMAGs0XsTyZrHxKMQsl8OQZbW+W+KwzTPtx/ifcS4zGOMWhgD6JroyAKI2mqL5mM70zH/l KYeOQHkZFN6D2Fc6ph8PtcqnLnMqgaMpBmIGFypGntstFTOPKvfp1J43hOAoQm3OQfpSyfx KP0Q8Tb5LpAbKz36oa64A==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:fi2Xe9S9rp4=:NRWndLEks8wAFJpZiKnIYN 16fBF3v1ZIx39GljJCTvBXnZySRSUNMMOF/hElMxHFaO+KMuFUi2vMhjiCEiu1BUIVrPS2AC0 xV43kFNUsRJEg0CoGkXc7lI+WTIzdCBejkW/Qc7XsAqCcbQw8gpRVO4RmnAQqZRYAABBRhkFs Mbj8NDUi5yLs6sZoLkwjUhwxFQHEXgkIDn4bYA6vYRzkyJzMu+D2yealGsw48fJxxyytL/4HM 1q4cEpjtpZf/4r7U2TmpYY817dMaLcZGX9ozZz2Fdb+jQEZ1tJODm8pB7UfXIGRc3tuR90Umb n4Z9mQx3PDduRuADi8KEFQvXMnBS4Ad/IKGs6iDu/aSAyMFb49RM2RaldWIelU0hfzEk89WjB RboZ5AY01FFNqtRA+ehvZxJl2myImLUxGXGD2XS/hdkYCVvg8iZVXdNtcME7KZ8v8gicURCgu 2duKBCTN5n8Y56yys12RHQ0zDm5ztfUIIMWk0+DNsZhD1qzHB3spCoztNfH7QX1WU5OjT9E68 xHCBcHAW5iTHIPOv2K1mCvBkicgicSCoELwEY95hHCICTntpdUkR3szI0R8Eswx3asbXxqQre aYAlZh19w+ABdvXW3QHsXvr8XB0qqVXdTx9vgLjR3dKSFt4yggY80r5ji1XSQ9ch/JhVRz0O0 Za6tYvrphnsvKAbkgUI18FytZv3lD62RNpjglT8E82+5U0M6wVivsW7RJPepSg11gn7OR64md xkszrj/NRIcwkFty4ME/gpFi5XvpwUWySXsA3OrjabqyBsrglMlhCLSIGrH4Lnz/jTFlmm4y/ fjC1I1B6Ml2HbQSXAgGs9Bu0Wv714LVlz17sb9uOQxO/VFR78pHJAgzG9S/f2AlKTNN05YKvr vG05kv4OWbBLy9g4MHLMte64Zs7e6V4OOGiZKs14k3HbMlBVEHjUqnhYBpGAlcHFp4reqeb0u tOnMox2w4cH/jzB3F4pUXIS4Cu3ApzcQCtRKSYMn9m9eGa5UmaSQJ+ZtpVgK+VDYzzXKeRLrt skWXlIiHdDMwKwBit47WAz0=
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] some thoughts about errata
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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>
Cc: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2017-02-08 16:26, John Levine wrote:
>>>> 1) Each erratum should have a stable URI that can be used for
>>>> citations.
>
> That would be nice, and I expect pretty easy.  This works now:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=nnnn
>
> Perhaps we could add an alternate URL with a slightly cleaner syntax
> and promise it's stable, e.g.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/erratum/nnnn

Right. We already have a URI, but in the past we've been told it can't 
be used in citation because it wasn't stable :-).

>>>> 2) For each RFC, there should be a machine-readable (*) HTTP resource
>>>> (**) offering status information about the set of erratas present for
>>>> that RFC.
>
> That's not much harder.  Agaim we already have this:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=nnnn
>
> The current result is formatted to look nice in a browser, but since
> it's all generated on the fly from a database, a cleaner URL that
> returned the result in XML or JSON would be straightforward.

Indeed. Something like this is needed so that HTML versions of RFCs can 
display up-to-date errata information.

Best regards, Julian

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