Re: [Tools-discuss] missing RFC numbers: 404 vs. "was never issued"

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

> On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> There are a few RFCs in your list that were issued in PDF only:
> 8, 9, 51, 418, 500, 598. So a 404 for the .txt files is no surprise,
> but I suppose a redirect to the PDF would be possible.

I had thought that we had text versions of everything by now, wasn’t there a project to do this?

What happened to that?   I am willing to help, I had done a few in the past.

Bob



> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 2018-12-12 09:12, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> I notice that in the tools.ietf.org interface (and in the rsync'ed HTML
>> data), some RFCs (like RFC 3889) say explicitly that they were never
>> issued:
>> 
>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3889
>> 
>> ("RFC 3889 was never issued.")
>> 
>> However, other RFCs are simply missing (they return an HTTP 404).
>> 
>> Some of the gaps in the RFC series are in the xx00 range -- i think
>> these used to be reserved for "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
>> summary documents, and some are numbered xx99, which used to be "RFC
>> summary" documents, both of which are now retired. (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100).
>> 
>> However, there are a lot of other 404s that aren't numbered xx99 or
>> xx00:
>> 
>>  rfc8
>>  rfc9
>>  rfc51
>>  rfc418
>>  rfc530
>>  rfc598
>>  rfc3333
>>  rfc3350
>>  rfc3907
>>  rfc3908
>>  rfc4232
>>  rfc4658
>>  rfc4751
>>  rfc4921
>>  rfc4922
>>  rfc4989
>>  rfc5108
>>  rfc5312
>>  rfc5313
>>  rfc5314
>>  rfc5315
>>  rfc5319
>>  rfc5809
>>  rfc5821
>>  rfc5822
>>  rfc5823
>>  rfc6019
>>  rfc6102
>>  rfc6103
>>  rfc6523
>>  rfc6524
>>  rfc6634
>>  rfc6966
>>  rfc6995
>>  rfc7327
>>  rfc7907
>>  rfc8389
>> 
>> 
>> For consistency, it'd be nice if either all of these missing RFCs would
>> get the "RFC XX99 was never issued" treatment; or, they could all return
>> a 404.  Is there some semantic difference we should infer for one thing
>> over another?
>> 
>>     --dkg
>> 
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>> 
>> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
>> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
>> or send email to [e-mail]
>> 
>> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
>> or send email to [e-mail]
>> 
> <rfc-not.txt>___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [e-mail]
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [e-mail]