Re: [Rswg] [Tools-discuss] RFC editor: wrong rfc-editor/datatracker metadata for rfc2236, rfc3376
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 12 December 2023 19:23 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C79C14CF0D for <rswg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.196 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vzDeh0ASbOWY for <rswg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 D0E00C14CF01 for <rswg@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-286d6c95b8cso5868607a91.0 for <rswg@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702409021; x=1703013821; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BFeqavNctpvy6Avi/M5dcLui6Bv3FFYEURcXOCdAlgk=; b=afvZMDqSBXvVIuxkGOKADeBF7xx8xJcwkwGKCRoTK7mLjhBwalAxq4HzgVx/rBeu88 iL1jyu9OCTvqg8UAGpnULpS8oALKTTB+VKbIuDcfGf+SXGF0gwVRnS6JHGe8tS3MfHpt fOQVF14qWeDv+QqtGuet+94xJm7riBY6HJPSjsFf2tSkvps+drPrFeAIV+W6R/FCGiaK 6PAsaiFDxfC/C0l+fmTrAKk9NmNqSr/XVpDEmZBkP0pH+Z8k2rxxOYDWwjvdobgFCSXe 2LSK3GD9p1nqYUgVzjzjo8wO6GE3LL78I3j5Q3rWL/gOGnfaGmIbnxBbTgA7uoUgL2FC hvyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702409021; x=1703013821; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BFeqavNctpvy6Avi/M5dcLui6Bv3FFYEURcXOCdAlgk=; b=MxsOr7tWXRPQgmPnoZU81GRVPpwkrJxNXihYWS6Mp23922Ct+NSulAeJ6htLxMOErS 6/qV/9jDX/40HAqbtqSqZ6faZw3z+ZsUBMwNBrktXGpe0WhZVjWPs7ZLNruWPkcL+SDl V0S8RMFlx7mSTtH1QEKiz9r/PiwvYdKLf7WbRReD6yDOxPkM6rq9mMdxhjjUbjlRQvDx jHvzl/dYzFwK9rwkAIR7XEjZ6INpwEw6MoA8tmi8hLW2FwrcMhoiwspEAMJC6wEvROvN eMfa7N85IKb52f0Eo63izEMtuC5sE30kjucIlACwdcl+kW9SJeIsCe6pERGygcM+C161 QMAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyOuuE0Mffh/Fbw2jMkoz+e2Okz0oQ94woTRZ7zGSBIC5qAy9+1 busNPByhdfFQSqtpWBwQOwOWa2IzzwtuhQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGnkzfLyMvdAauCcN5yZ3apyLLm3PlZAHNfVXI4bE/lS85tdApbm128E0PyPXi/350lUNTBUg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:880e:b0:286:9b25:1c66 with SMTP id s14-20020a17090a880e00b002869b251c66mr5803135pjn.24.1702409020897; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mh17-20020a17090b4ad100b002865028e17csm10784482pjb.9.2023.12.12.11.23.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <aa47220b-a309-afa1-67f9-0362119b44bb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:23:35 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: RSWG <rswg@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <ZXiA2CP306sn-SE8@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <e7eb2ed0-0452-40f7-80ec-50c1ca28ec82@nostrum.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e7eb2ed0-0452-40f7-80ec-50c1ca28ec82@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/3gHekeSCiuvMkfqWBVIiJkKIfmw>
Subject: Re: [Rswg] [Tools-discuss] RFC editor: wrong rfc-editor/datatracker metadata for rfc2236, rfc3376
X-BeenThere: rswg@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RFC Series Working Group \(RSWG\)" <rswg.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rswg>, <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg>, <mailto:rswg-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:23:45 -0000
Switching to the RSWG list for cause: On 13-Dec-23 05:04, Robert Sparks wrote: > Hi Toerless: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-v3/10/ works. > Earlier versions don't because the datatracker doesn't have metadata > history (DocHistory objects) for those versions. There's already an > issue to make it so that people can see the draft text _anyhow_. > > Also https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-v3-10.txt > > (you can see earlier versions at that last link by replacing the version). > > that version says obsoletes, and previous versions say nothing. > > The metadata was adjusted by erratum - see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc3376 > > See what the IESG asked for in the first verified erratum. Also see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3376.html A perfect example for those who believe that re-rendering RFCs with fixed errata, including metadata, should be the norm. Brian > > RjS > > On 12/12/23 9:48 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: >> Dear RFC editor, datatracker tools team >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3376.txt, which i guess/hope is authoritative >> claims that it is obsoleting rfc2236. However, all the places where RFC editor >> keeps metadata, such as rfc-index.txt says that it updates rfc2236. >> >> Likewise, datatracker metadata does also indicate update instead of obsolete >> (which i guess is where RFC editor got its information from). Alas, datatracker >> does not allow me to find the draft versions of rfc3376 anymore (opened a datatracker >> bug against that) to verify that the source file has been consistently saying obsolete. >> >> In any case, it would be good if this inconsistency was fixed, and datatracker/rfc-editor >> metadata was updated to indicate that rfc3376 obsoletes rfc2236. >> >> Thanks >> Toerless >> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
- Re: [Rswg] [Tools-discuss] RFC editor: wrong rfc-… Brian E Carpenter