IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Listing updating RFCs in RFCs

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 April 2024 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757B4C14F6FB for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.149 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=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=iecc.com header.b="hd0eGD05"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="e5dj3XUe"
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 2draN0pLTH8X for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:42:14 -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 9378BC14F6FA for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 64387 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2024 00:42:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=fb726615e063.k2404; bh=ti1I9U/N5vD18K/2+tuOFM+dj4W7SIYrHSzPON1c5m8=; b=hd0eGD05gu1TO/e7EziGeliFhLwd/bpqf1SKHd1RGiO4sMm9wmUH8nuGqEhvWaBHAheymXgd2T965U6xVyNZPqRlGE0mTgPN6MeGYX6g2d3tCjNXrUggKi0Q35iLeL/priESnPYroAtxKyf25Gvcp+K1xhISiVtG7GUr9KoCjrHSbqWw3ZsHF2vwrOSidt5CIv7mVy6L3T5AUATf3m/xWF3gybLiXrqe0Et1slrKAS6L22Z3JOZXMjJ7aZ9yN7KU6BO7DtDMZNcXjc5rdWAyUGEbA7WgVI17J0Lmbqz+M9m78MMK9jM3KYIsAHWDn3EFmlDcTvgQmhc7FU2gxF/zQQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=fb726615e063.k2404; bh=ti1I9U/N5vD18K/2+tuOFM+dj4W7SIYrHSzPON1c5m8=; b=e5dj3XUe8CZnvz1FATTezHgs5xQ3oUiD2C7NOg0zuUyy2mQafO2xMyHQXBsdLHO+5oYfdDZXdDDL52r9qr8I9rHQCaKgob4fqSPQNfeRww5TcIxnk23ddBwuFVjNaLcHAW+0K/mglh9WbxAoEBjoAItuo/QVG2ZCtSaGPDhvujkER7eTO4WsgkgI5GUXC2nwogmamGDF/STbJHUpI+hduQ5qZfEonH0edlRgjUKOcI/CptLcCkjmSXZNQC6o3ZziFM/kffaGvlVjMFC/Kt3i9vHEafkazX2rNMEFTge39StnIAd3isJyXKyHnPWE/hefMPRzEl2M25K5GqoEHkAbuA==
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 CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 10 Apr 2024 00:42:11 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id DF359876F07B; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 20:42:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:42:10 -0400
Message-Id: <20240410004210.DF359876F07B@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2FC07D4D-1A55-4D74-9F60-9AC0A99D3983@jisc.ac.uk>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/6_7ItrTJlHMIr2FQo0J4Q9M9vqM>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Listing updating RFCs in RFCs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:42:19 -0000

It appears that Tim Chown  <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> said:
>No. The plain text version is immutable by definition, and as far as I know the PDFs for all RFCs before RFC8650 are simply images of the
>plain text version and also immutable.

You might want to review the very extensive discussion of this topic in the RSWG list over the past year or so.

tl;dr The immutability thing is as far as I can tell a de-facto rule
dating from the early days of the RFC series when there was no way to
update photocopies of a hand typed RFC, not something that that anyone
deliberately decided on.

These days the text version is just one rendering of several. We've
made a lot of improvements to xml2rfc over the past few years so if
you rerender the early XML RFCs, there's no reason to expect the text
layout to be identical to the ones we made when we published them.
That is not a bug.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email