IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Broken relative links to I-Ds in RFCs

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 30 May 2023 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 D4087C151078 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 23:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 T0sx2h5omrr2 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 23:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400::25]) (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 9947BC15107C for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2023 23:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 8DA9B8501F; Tue, 30 May 2023 09:35:22 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1685428523; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to:references; bh=ZSEperz3W73b8yh0JJOZQOZkSPHqaGYgmWrqmXmFeFQ=; b=JbHDLKMLlaDyci+dH+7XFCSSVmk+nqKubJefGw8q/L0iJu7kYHK9G+0JLkNqnSEl3aNTMw wkgaWR8VhR/m13x1XdRrRAweR+9gJaQ0CnOO6g6EME7rQgfwoyJ5qnBol1X7hvPLkvTNjy U0k2YMuoBbuRi3mqheuhK3tFhrJaU4BSRH/96jRjmWLxpUeojjiE9zv2tcgqiORUQSDgiz VrCYuStM90IJi1Hqw4STI9SJuevez+UNI/UHz2h1Dq9kV9LVHolYKCDvUJlOegIaiD/w95 UHhUt1WJfu1YPvSKy2kZnWlSIGKOt0JrvOWwhPawlKXnje1VhFFKhMa95lnPew==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F92CA2E1-8408-4488-94D6-832062898221"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <949aa033-47a7-9914-e8d9-2a4bd45909c5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 09:35:21 +0300
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <0410A08E-140D-43BD-9870-54BF03BB63D6@eggert.org>
References: <CABcZeBPn4+UyTyx6ETSnJ=twYosN1N5tmFjQOaGS5ohMMGF9Rw@mail.gmail.com> <949aa033-47a7-9914-e8d9-2a4bd45909c5@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/GpSWwK8XhJmP7C7yoapmxVTxZ7A>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Broken relative links to I-Ds 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: Tue, 30 May 2023 06:35:30 -0000

Hi,

On May 28, 2023, at 05:01, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, it looks as if the .html files at rfc-editor are exact copies of the htmlized versions at datatracker.ietf.org

they aren't, or at least not always.

For documents where it doesn't have xml2rfc-generated HTML available (like RFC8555), the datatracker uses the latest version of https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html to generate HTML to render from the plaintext version. As part of that, it sets the "path" argument for rfc2html.markup so links work relative to the datatracker document tree.

The RPC - AFAIK - uses whatever version of rfc2html is current at the time an RFC is published to generate HTML, and mostly never recreates the HTML. It also looks like they don't set the "path" argument correctly or at all, because "." is the default: https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html/blob/e02f36d34cdd7a07f7bf43972f143e0cec067737/rfc2html.py#L20

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email