Re: [Tools-discuss] How do we diagnose DOI errors?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> On 2020-10-20, at 06:01, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml”>
> […]
> We really should have a reliable place for the reference information. I
> still don't get why we recommended the above URI back in RFC 7749 (I
> *think* after consuting with the RPC), and now that redirects to
> tools.ietf.org.

I don’t think RFC 7749 “recommended” that URI; it just used a similar URI in an example for declaring and using an external entity.

Kramdown-rfc briefly used xml2rfc.ietf.org; I don’t recollect exactly why we switched back to xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org as suggested in RFC 7991; I seem to remember that this was to avoid the redirect from xml2rfc.ietf.org to xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org and the attendant SPOF and delay.  After all, xml2rfc.ietf.org continues to say 301 Moved Permanently:

$ curl -I https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:02:05 GMT
Server: Apache
Location: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
$ 

I believe that the interface to the canned bibliography information needs to be an integral part of the authoring side of RFCXML, but tools-discuss is the wrong mailing list for that discussion (or is it?).

(Here is the text from RFC 7991 Appendix B.1:

   The most common way to use <xi:include> is to pull in references that
   are already formed as XML.  Currently, this can be done from
   xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org, but later this is expected to be from the RFC
   Editor.

I don’t know who owns the authoring side of RFCXML; if it is the RFC Editor, it might indeed seem logical for this responsibility to rest with the RPC.)

Grüße, Carsten