IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc-markdown] revising RFC8366 -- upgrade it for me?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 04 July 2021 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBD53A282B for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 pbE42ViSb4He for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737193A2829 for <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B30A38AED; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:14:26 -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 GkGFjOACY2wj; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837A038B10; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F92319; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, rfc-markdown@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <22B32BA7-4BA8-4FBD-B3D8-1C7B21AD5319@tzi.org>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <20210625224810.GC30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <AM7PR07MB6248F9002860D02203B1CC71A0039@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20210628120924.xuuwnhnvz4jid7sp@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <26783.1624896286@localhost> <20210628161448.23zzsb2iazxgakmd@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <5322.1624898378@localhost> <20210628182043.krqzcflymazra52d@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <22009.1625005448@localhost> <E5E503BE-67D2-4913-969B-A7E990866F13@tzi.org> <5628.1625435754@localhost> <22B32BA7-4BA8-4FBD-B3D8-1C7B21AD5319@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:11:59 -0400
Message-ID: <27092.1625440319@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/4SLkTbMp7k4zEo78wALocI_rpOw>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] revising RFC8366 -- upgrade it for me?
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 23:12:11 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> I'm not sure if it's kdrfc or xml2rfc or...
    >> but the datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfcXXXX seems to be used rather than
    >> rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.   Is this a conscious choice somewhere?
    >>
    >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8366&url2=https://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis.txt
    >>
    >> (look at the normative references.  I don't know how to encode that I want
    >> html wdiff in the URL for rfcdiff, but that version is more obvious)

    > The choice of URL prefix for target URIs in RFC and I-D references is a
    > parameter to xml2rfc [1].

ah, okay.

    > Kdrfc calls xml2rfc with default parameters here, which seem to yield
    > what you are seeing, probably a bug:

I guess I thought that kdrfc was inlining everything when stand_alone.
I guess that doesn't include the URL itself.

    > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-...
    > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc...

    > I could put in some parameter mangling, as Martin Thomson did for
    > I-D-template (which calls xml2rfc by itself, with these parameters:)

I'm trying to "upgrade" to pure MT makefile, so maybe it doesn't put
in the same --rfc-base-url for kramdown as it does for xml.

    > XML2RFC_RFC_BASE_URL := https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
    > XML2RFC_ID_BASE_URL := https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
    > xml2rfc ?= xml2rfc -q -s 'Setting consensus="true" for IETF STD document' --rfc-base-url $(XML2RFC_RFC_BASE_URL) --id-base-url $(XML2RFC_ID_BASE_URL)

    > None of these is “right”.
    > Which ones do you want?

I thought that the consensus was that we needed to link to
rfc-editor.org/info in order to make sure that people go there, and can see
errata, etc.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email