[rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

Robert Sparks rjsparks at nostrum.com
Tue Feb 23 07:42:00 PST 2021


On 2/23/21 6:16 AM, tom petch wrote:
> On 23/02/2021 03:41, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 01:39 +0100 Carsten Bormann
>> <cabo at tzi.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am having trouble completely picturing just what you have in
>>>> mind, but, whatever you do, please keep in mind that
>>>> references from RFCs are supposed to be completely stable.
>>>> That means that, if I, as author, reference
>>>> draft-foo-bar-baz-03 at the time of RFC publication, wherever
>>>> the link points should produce draft-foo-bar-baz-03 and not
>>>> its most recent successor, whether that is
>>>> draft-foo-bar-baz-15 or RFC 9999.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the landing page for -03 could have pointers to newer
>>> versions (I-D, RFC, Obsoleting RFC, …).
>>
>> I have no problem with that as long as the landing page
>> unambiguously gets the reader to -03.  The current datatracker
>> page for a draft does not have that property -- one gets a
>> multiversion page that shows the most recent one and then has to
>> figure out how to navigate back to a particular version.
>
> For me, the datatracker page that I get to from a datatracker WG page 
> has the metadata that I need to work, whereas the tools page is sadly 
> lacking in that regard.  Yes, there is less metadata but I need that 
> missing metadata so leaving it out is counter-productive.
>
> Also, from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<i-d name>
To  be clear, that page is not going away.
> I get what is to me a clear display of the document history from which 
> I can navigate to (almost) any earlier version.  I am puzzled that 
> there should be any difficulty in clicking on the green or purple bar 
> to select a different version (except when the submissions window is 
> closing and authors submit three versions in under 24 hours and the 
> bars shrink to zero).
>
> I think that the datatracker took a giant leap forward at some point 
> from being unusable to being the best way into the work of the IETF so 
> my home page became Active WGs. I often want to return there so that 
> having the nav bar is most useful.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>>>> This is, of course a
>>>> cousin of whether a new I-D or RFC should be referencing the
>>>> same target RFC as the document it is replacing or should be
>>>> referencing the most recent update/replacement for that
>>>> earlier version.  In both cases, heuristics will frequently
>>>> be wrong. It might actually be useful for authors to be able
>>>> to specify "the version we specified, really" versus "most
>>>> recent version" in markup.
>>>
>>> Which you already can do in the source for an I-D.  RFC
>>> references are frozen, though.
>>
>> I probably missed how to do that in I-Ds referencing I-Ds after
>> I got frustrated many years ago with automated handling of them
>> and just started typing them in.
>>
>>>> I'm even a little hesitant about your pointing to the HTML
>>>> version as long as at least some of the html versions are
>>>> synthesized from the text rather than being supplied by
>>>> authors (who have presumably checked them) or generated from
>>>> xml2rfc v3 (which is presumably infallible). The synthesis
>>>> process doesn't make serious errors very often, but, in my
>>>> experience, it does make them.
>>
>>> This could easily be fixed.
>>> I did a PoC for that a while ago.
>>> The data collection for the fixer does need some effort; this
>>> could be crowd-sourced or done proactively (probably more
>>> expensive than we care about this problem).
>>
>> Personally, I'd much rather see any spare energy in the short
>> term concentrated on fixing things like indexes.
>>
>> best,
>>     john
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list