Re: [Tools-discuss] Replaced-by inconsistencies

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the explanation! That makes perfect sense. And I'm glad it's 
being fixed.

/a

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> The explanation is that the generated html files aren't always up-to-date,
> and the reason for that in turn is a bit more complex:  
>
>    1) The load (number of accesses) on the html converted drafts and
>    RFCs is sufficiently high that the 4 servers currently available
>    wouldn't be able to handle it if the html version was dynamically
>    generated in order to be fully up-to-date,
>
>    2) I try to keep the update frequency low, as I don't want search
>    engines to believe that they have to check the whole 65,000+ corpus
>    every day in order to catch changes...
>
> This means that 
>
>    a) I have a very long re-generation period of ~3 months -- unless
>    something about the document state changes, a document is only re-
>    generated if it is older than 3 months.  That re-generation is done
>    mainly to catch updates to the conversion tool, which happens now
>    and then (see http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/changelog).
>
>    b) In order to catch status changes in documents, an explicit re-
>    generation has to be triggered when something changes which should
>    be reflected in the html document.  Re-generation is now triggered
>    when a new version of a draft appears, when a draft appears in the
>    datatracker, when a document is published as an RFC, and in some
>    other cases.
>
> However, regeneration when new replaced-by information appears has not
> up to now been triggered.  Which I'm now about to fix :-)
>
>
> Best,
>
> 	Henrik
>    
>    
>
> On 2009-07-18 12:50 Adam Roach said the following:
>   
>> It looks to me like the replaced-by information in drafts is being 
>> applied inconsistently.
>>
>> For example, if you look at:
>>
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-sipping-199-04
>>
>> The "Versions" line reads "00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-sip-199", which is 
>> correct -- that is, because draft-ietf-sip-199 replaced 
>> draft-holmberg-sipping-199, it appears after all the versions.
>>
>> If you click on the draft-ietf-sip-199 link, you get taken here:
>>
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-199-08
>>
>> The "Versions" line links back to the draft that it replaced. Great!
>>
>> Now, lets look at:
>>
>>   
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements-01
>>
>> It correctly links back to 
>> draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements, which it replaced. So 
>> far, so good. However, if you go to 
>> draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements:
>>
>>   
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-03
>>
>> There's no link forward to the sipcore draft! The "Versions" line just 
>> goes up to 03, and stops.
>>
>> Certainly the tools should understand that the "replaces"/"replaced by" 
>> relationship is reciprocal. Is this database corruption, or incomplete 
>> data entry? It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident (cf., 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-00) -- I would 
>> propose that an audit of the "replaces"/"replaced by" relationship data 
>> is in order...
>>
>> /a
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>>
>>