IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Standalone iddiff?

Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> Tue, 05 March 2024 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF054C14F749 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:47:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=ops-netman.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1RQsK-NINen for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.ops-netman.net (relay.ops-netman.net [192.110.255.59]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A935AC14F680 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (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 relay.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56503C212A; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 03:47:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailserver.ops-netman.net.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B18F240; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 03:47:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ops-netman.net; s=2021; t=1709610449; bh=94XQdTRPvImEpbfyWBM1MsPc1tlEHylDlz5hPzB5oyA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=fWg0bbY6TzJTcDkknmStPE0WztkavjwfxfqkHUzKnRTr6dXw7hWx5NYdj1wqu+8eI CX2H5DQBgkDIqqDMOCoFySXIAvYix2eKTk803ZB+PUxnfrMqdyRWyzDq0cg8P1dqv+ nyUHkW6c05bUB8JmL2AhSkWTvkwPtrKpLeMnvvRsyOjuZ+MgUa/EdQBfhjDeJHsUkZ CDEUAgvQMf6GMG+XSKAo3vl66PoWCycLjfpX3gClOmlQkGdOPVfJMTW0FOpVbnpAO1 YbJl+kQZ3S6ssPTG3i9zzJTK5FoG79Cs3I3AFLJn1SLEDLGi3kEMU1H9ohl7sGdgLI lNCYBwah+zV0NMvNfCoS6XQcpMoPGi0EaBuiQuT8i3qjnt+7ctRdeebAtbDEkshdpN Q3WgexjmvKFs85FCoE3Mf7uHkH6U20XNfMYKuVnSQdT+6Wmd2L663dh4JDelpN9r1c MCTFTiXx6QsW0kFTiixySznqBvY1r9Xhkh0/+Z5Nqj8eF4ce08vpW4P2athIErdeyj +l9GbY2PJVCjzi02ZXUl73MZhtgEXCxHne5vKr/wQdk/4UQpA5ZVnRvY5WMG3olcq8 2wU3yRfBSoRmBjMHFSFl5po7PasSD6azeI0lvzoG4N/joLm2a54nifPHe/Z/rAnzre m93DGxo6dMZ06cDBc2+y8ijE=
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 03:47:29 +0000
Message-ID: <87o7btl4q6.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net>
From: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
To: Kesara Rathnayake <kesara@staff.ietf.org>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@proper.com>, Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD2=Z85A=3jwb0vTUGyOtNC06nnWEarUFsysgwxj=ffJPQAQgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FEA0AADB-89C3-4B5F-9470-A6579D9A4680@proper.com> <87r0gqkkfn.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net> <87plwakk9m.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net> <CAD2=Z85A=3jwb0vTUGyOtNC06nnWEarUFsysgwxj=ffJPQAQgg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/tUoD3pYunGaUI7hJjhuRngbZMCM>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Standalone iddiff?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 03:47:37 -0000

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 18:25:05 +0000,
Kesara Rathnayake <kesara@staff.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,

howdy, thanks!

> 
> There's no recursion there.

it sure looks like there is... I guess it's not strictly exactly the same call,
but it could be.

> There are two tools for document comparison, one is rfcdiff [1] and
> the other is iddiff [2].
> Author Tools use rfcdiff by default because the community prefers it.
> In some cases, iddiff is very slow compared to rfcdiff.
> The code you pointed to retry with rfcdiff, if the comparison tool
> used was iddiff and if that times out.

Sure, the setup here is:
  "Start doing diff things, if that times out try myself again with (possibly) rfcdiff instead"

then just keep on looping like that recursing 'forever' if the rfcdiff tool happens to also choke
on the input.

With no protection against that (which really is just a counter to the function signature and a check
against max recursion) you're sort of just betting that you never have a bad day with rfcdiff.

-chris
(note my 'using python in anger' skills are ... suffering, but I think that's an accurate read)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email