[Tools-discuss] Re: documents by WG --- RFCs and related documents -- are there APIs

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Wed, 30 July 2025 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E824D59690 for <tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2LbYeWKRxKMh for <tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9B34D5968B for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (69-77-155-156.static.skybest.com [69.77.155.156]) (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 oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7E6110D7A; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1753888758; bh=2msO+MY8HaKJ3g/Cpljj19NIlQgiiGeY5yW/uhrQOPA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=eSEoBMPl4a7oWB8F74wbXr3TA9s1Dh0qrTkRAeIitLSn88HzNjWDet4h66K2gG9Ox SJxZRj+vL+7o1buhOfk0qTlhMrai2pE0YTZmjyKtwOMMPRSPNkiZHIDaAG5yBYrxvD cjjyG1I25gr6/FyU9s9GQWBNfpEqn966fQUIA0ivmLigpxKlxpTkdiuocMG6AMIKrR 0CSnSV/W/Det2/2aRzRFtZXh2kceqBM+wJI6tVkoe90Fm+nm5qHnWYNu6/Y9+KtYJl BqAJPJM+ZG5xHB5S8Pth5TRtKcV5i3SIJ0Y2j6Y/smm9W93/tYFvPKQ1oeF3HdPulC Nu60n++jCjgpA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:19:18 -0400
Message-Id: <9215E610-26BC-4110-A319-66C85E7C2A4F@bangj.com>
References: <523a3640-feab-4eeb-9b98-09eb6438923c@staff.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <523a3640-feab-4eeb-9b98-09eb6438923c@staff.ietf.org>
To: Jennifer Richards <jennifer@staff.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (23A5297m)
Message-ID-Hash: QIMHDPSAVUGXB5OZZJV5LLDMJLFS7IYS
X-Message-ID-Hash: QIMHDPSAVUGXB5OZZJV5LLDMJLFS7IYS
X-MailFrom: pusateri@bangj.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tools-discuss.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: documents by WG --- RFCs and related documents -- are there APIs
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/cK8f7i_1XkbnV3Z3RWG8-vP-bBg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tools-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

Hopefully, the v1 API won’t change. Isn’t that the point of versioning? If the models were to change, then you should define a new v2 API so that you don’t break all the existing v1 users.

Thanks,
Tom

> On Jul 30, 2025, at 11:16 AM, Jennifer Richards <jennifer@staff.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
>> On 2025-07-27 12:33 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Now I am thinking that I want to automate bring RFCxxxx into each directory.
>> 1. Is there an API that would return a WG's "RFC list"?
>> 2. Is there an API that would return a WG's Related Documents list?
>> Yes, I can read the DT source code, but asking here would tell me if the API
>> contract is stable, or if someone is considering changing it.
> 
> You can do this with the v1 (tastypie) API for RFCs:
> 
> $ curl -s 'https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/?type=rfc&group__acronym=httpapi' | jq -r '.objects[].name'
> rfc9512
> rfc9264
> rfc9457
> rfc9652
> rfc9745
> rfc9727
> 
> The related documents is more difficult because it involves a configuratble list of search rules. You can get ones that were explicitly added to the document list starting with
> 
> $ curl -s 'http://localhost:8000/api/v1/community/communitylist/?group__acronym=httpapi' | jq -r '.objects[].added_docs[]'
> /api/v1/doc/document/draft-pot-authentication-link/
> 
> which you can parse for the name or fetch as an API url to get more details.
> 
> AFAIK there's no (reasonable) way to get the related documents that appear because of search rule matches. It might be technically possible, but you'd likely be happier looking these up manually.
> 
> This API is stable, though closely reflects datatracker's models so may change if the modeling evolves. That's not likely to come up often.
> 
> jennifer
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Tools-discuss mailing list -- tools-discuss@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/