Re: [Tools-discuss] Listing updating RFCs in RFCs

Tim,

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
>> On 8 Apr 2024, at 15:48, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Tim,
>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 7:07 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I was caught out this week looking at RFC 4861 as part of reviewing the draft on a new P bit for PIOs.
>>> 
>>> I missed the “updated by RFC 8425” on RFC 4861 as I was looking at the HTML rendered version of RFC 4861 at
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861.html 
>>> rather than the datatracker version at
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4861/ 
>>> where you can see RFC 8425 (and RFC 9131) listed as updating RFCs which are missing on the HTML rendered version.  There was a clue I missed in that the 7th of 9 RFCs in the Updated by list had a comma after it, but no RFC.
>>> 
>>> The text and PDF versions don’t show any of the updating RFCs for RFC 4861.
>> 
>> The htmlized version:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4861
>> 
>> Does show the list of updated RFCs in the sidebar.
> 
> Thanks, so should we consider the HMTL version as obsolete or no longer supported?

I am not sure about that, but it does seem like we have a few versions that are different and this is confusing.

Personally, I prefer the version with more information in the header, vs. sidebar, but I suspect opinions differ on that.   But the bug you pointed out should be fixed.

> 
> I don’t mind as such, but personally I won’t be looking at the HTML version again having been bitten here. Unfortunately it’s the version google search returns first, so many people will routinely find it.
> 
> Maybe the HTML version should have a clearer indication that the link to “Tracker” at the top is the authoritative source from which other versions can be found?  Quite a few people less familiar with IETF process may have no idea what “Tracker” means.

In this case, the authoritative version is the RFC editor version, not the datatracker.

Bob

> 
> Tim
> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> 
>>> I’m wondering whether the updating RFCs should just be metadata to the RFCs, or be included fully in all RFCs in all versions.  It’s a little dangerous/confusing when you only see a partial list.  Or maybe I shouldn’t be looking at the HTML but rather the HTMLised version?
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 