IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 30 May 2022 20:42 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 86B61C1A7F2A for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2022 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653943354; bh=mt6N7ZBXB2nEEo/Auz39wA4Jh/YIXyHuxQ3mesi2+Jw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=ge+pa/mZxfYcynI637HtceAyjk/HwnW1dPt6oXEyOwIA2WvzomzLy0pY5EsaefZMM xWQVNszvfs4SR43Q0K1jq0xkrdohJ3P6c5BJwZslR/rLTPUxIX1tG99tghSUojszaF EfriNiTuiJxntjbXiy+OE7uJlmvblOvqpkd5WzRw=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Mon May 30 13:42:34 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5583CC15C0AB; Mon, 30 May 2022 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653943354; bh=mt6N7ZBXB2nEEo/Auz39wA4Jh/YIXyHuxQ3mesi2+Jw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=ge+pa/mZxfYcynI637HtceAyjk/HwnW1dPt6oXEyOwIA2WvzomzLy0pY5EsaefZMM xWQVNszvfs4SR43Q0K1jq0xkrdohJ3P6c5BJwZslR/rLTPUxIX1tG99tghSUojszaF EfriNiTuiJxntjbXiy+OE7uJlmvblOvqpkd5WzRw=
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 1F2E8C15C0AB for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2022 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.859 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=cJ7oZ4NG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=pn0tzwq9
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 PVD-g7gX6z_R for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2022 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 5015CC15AAC8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 30 May 2022 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 96620 invoked from network); 30 May 2022 20:42:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=17969.62952c31.k2205; bh=9gDp6I4Hd6VugOweTawPUA2Kh5eA3YGKZ0Ner/AN6F4=; b=cJ7oZ4NGSX52NLkFmUd8Ds9NKC62CGXYKwoRy/HhPZo7c0VTF7vcKH+stTPbdI/Qlvk3Kbxk5u9VgWKgLnHoUUHkisj3N4xuCqIVChD3MKWOrWMx5Irz2/28MYZitiqY3K3lg5bZwHW997u9i04Qj0Ie9fEDrwoQv3Dt+ezsEhAyIg/KEXFIgecmAkQ/gjx5at0BM7/cKanJ5s3SdOgiprjP5rO8ygVU4a+adhvmHNDR5Y4mtaoCJJx4N91WFpiBtdbSO/PXcx4+z/kx6WtrpCn3AUbmYSXRYHyLJmQSgfuSHhheB9jUv39q4wfsosal9sUvBnNyl5NeitLfZ387XA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=17969.62952c31.k2205; bh=9gDp6I4Hd6VugOweTawPUA2Kh5eA3YGKZ0Ner/AN6F4=; b=pn0tzwq9Ez3ZJULXzLchaOOP5pAvHtxEBkF2nxg0QziI+xrJ46T7gT2L3Ml97AjaO68ceRxvbcVJxlYa4NDEIdReDOGVgXeDDBnfo8pIIL6N7/AEMuyvkHsvyIdY1ku8W98aCtsHgdXP1f/Tkwvita39d9AjYEzJBa9oyQMudnTS4lAf1FXw/UCxQeVE0zNdBEVKdHx2lctIuoHQCCdmfEG7Gj60sMNWqOJtyRAdM8cjoI8KoR5ZJHoI6/mVnyTxr/WKJ3Dx10fdJbLg3ZmVAs5Lhy4BPEQBdTN4BW9zjcvYIvz7mVzj3hWwLiRj0cXuRu/oH/tVTIBguV1Q7laEtw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 30 May 2022 20:42:25 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 69A8641F1BEE; Mon, 30 May 2022 16:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 16:42:23 -0400
Message-Id: <20220530204225.69A8641F1BEE@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Cc: exec-director@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0A8009D7-EBB0-48CE-8915-742329682DC0@ietf.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/xXspcil69uEm138Le06QrGyQ8_g>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

It appears that Jay Daley  <exec-director@ietf.org> said:
>The additional tagging does indeed only apply to the generated HTML and not the XML, but the questions then become - how important is
>that tagging (metadata) to future discoverability, is it true metadata or derived data (i.e. can it be inferred from the RFC) and does
>that new metadata need to be included with any external archive deposit. I’m sure John and the RPC have this in hand.

The HTML metadata we're talking about is all derived mechanically from the XML, other than the proposed
logo images that the OG data would point to.

We have agreements with the Computer History Museum and the National
Library of Sweden to keep mirror archives of RFCs. I have recently
confirmed with the CHM that they are doing so, but I haven't been able
to find a contact in Sweden. If anyone has any contacts there, please
let me know. (I know which IETFers live in Sweden, no need to tell me
again.)

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
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