[Tools-discuss] Re: March tools update

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

fwiw, I happen to have some software that processes RFC numbers, working off the XML version of the RFC index, and I fixed it for the RFC10k problem last year sometime, testing against a patched RFC index containing some 5 digit numbers. I didn't need a dummy RFC10000.

There's a related question - the leading zeros which will disappear. I also fixed my code to be resilient to that. Publishing RFC10000 will not in itself help with that at all.

(Incidentally, we are stuck with leading zeros in the DOIs for RFC1 through RFC999.)

(Also incidentally, to those who suggested publishing RFC10000 on April 1st, I would prefer that we publish RFC0; it's well overdue.)

IMHO there really isn't any need to post a dummy RFC10000. A clear statement of what will change in the published rfc-index.txt and rfc-index.xml should be enough warning. If people are warned, they can choose to be ready in advance or not.

And look! The RPC has nicely documented what's coming:
https://github.com/ietf-tools/red/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md

Perhaps there should be a dedicated public announcement of this to increase awareness.

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 13-Mar-26 06:50, Dave Thaler wrote:
> I like Tero’s suggestion as well, though the more general topic might just be the fact
> that RFC numbers are not 4 digits and tools should not have any such assumption.
> 
> I.e., not just a statement that it’s used to test, but a specific statement about not making
> any such assumption.
> 
> Dave
> 
> *From:*Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2026 10:29 AM
> *To:* Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Alan DeKok <alan.dekok=[e-mail]>; Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>; Tools Team Discussion <[e-mail]>; WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: March tools update
> 
> This seems reasonable as well.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 10:06 AM Tero Kivinen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Warren Kumari writes:
>      > Yes. I think that there should be an RFC10000, but it should not be a
>      > technical document.
> 
>     I remember proposing few years ago that we should publish RFC10000
>     then just to start finding out places where we assume 4 digit RFC
>     numbers with document where it does not matter.
> 
>     I.e. the content of that RFC10000 would be "This is document used to
>     test how different systems treat RFC numbes with 5-digit RFC numbers."
> 
>     I think we should still do it now, and publish RFC10000 immediately,
>     as it will take months or years to find all places where someone has
>     RFC\d{1-4} as regexp when converting RFC numbers to links or similar.
> 
>     -- 
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>     -----------------------------------------------
>     Tools-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Tools-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/