Re: [Tools-discuss] Unicode decode error for RFCs

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 05 April 2021 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 600D53A29A3 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 fsVLr1KxRpLT for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71FBD3A299B for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([47.186.1.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 135LvdDR073734 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:57:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1617659861; bh=FT3hB6p5qCjilMTq1WgEh6Uito7GE+/TIhdsbAqmsVc=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BFLvrlGsqBCLzD9f+M32Q4YAIRXty7UNxq1hrCcpcLlruIWO5Vs6qlE1zpijcv1NC Uo2+VskE+zG9Ull8rKMYA7kf9/xax9IAwley7HmC0blrSWMpKA0p1Hkz6lXgEpe0mQ ML5BuOB74v89cv4ryx66SlqHvRDjdg08irmEPn9I=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.1.92] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <3C729A10-5F70-465F-AD97-0A1338836C82@vpnc.org> <4790f6a6-5893-e8e6-7361-74657a6735d7@gmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <9e9c8c7e-c6f2-bd59-4f8b-2e009b50447b@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:57:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4790f6a6-5893-e8e6-7361-74657a6735d7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/bz-j-_AFGKeFJCJ9H8Hu9fd_aEo>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Unicode decode error for RFCs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 21:57:50 -0000

Replying to this, even though the thread has mostly moved on, to point 
at a detail that we need to remember.

On 4/3/21 10:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Paul,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9007 is OK. And the tools repository is going away anyway. Maybe the Twitterland needs to be told.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9007.html is even more OK. I mean, who cares about the htmlized versions of HTML RFCs?

Other systems (software, SDOs) need to be able to point at the 
appropriate thing for both old and new RFCs. There's been a strong 
preference in the past to point to the HTMLized versions for many reasons.

For pre-v3 era RFCs, the htmlized versions is what we have - we do not 
have the xml2rfc v3 html output, and it is not currently on any plan to 
try to retroactively create any such thing.

Asking software and other SDOs to learn to use two different URL 
patterns (one before and one after the v3 switch) is not likely to be heard.

RjS


> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 04-Apr-21 14:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9007
>>
>> (Hat tip to https://twitter.com/elithebearded/status/1378520379229044736
>> for pointing it out, and the @FakeUnicode Twitter user for reposting.)
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
>> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
>> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
>> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
>> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
>> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss