RFC Index Files Updates -- XML and HTML

[rfc-editor]

Greetings,

FYI, we have added stream information to RFC indices (XML and HTML) as
mentioned in Section 6 of
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08. Stream is as defined in RFC
4844 (IETF, IAB, IRTF, or Independent) or Legacy*. In the case of IETF
stream, the area and WG acronym are included.

The following files will be updated on Monday (17 August 2009) to
include Stream information:

Hyperlinked index of RFCs:
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html  (ascending by RFC number)
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html (descending by RFC number)

XML index of RFCs:
  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml

XML schema:
  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xsd
  Note: The new elements are <stream>, <area>, and <wg_acronym>.

Each of these files is linked to from
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

*As noted previously (regarding metadata pages), some RFCs are marked
Legacy, indicating that source information was not recorded for this
RFC; we are working on updating this information for RFCs for which it
exists.

Thank you.

RFC Editor

>From Section 6 of draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08:

   Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
   method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC
   editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g., indices and
   interfaces.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Brian E Carpenter-2]

Hi,

Thanks for this.

Is there any reason not to add the stream info to the .txt version
of the index?

Regards
   Brian

On 2009-08-15 07:42, RFC Editor wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> FYI, we have added stream information to RFC indices (XML and HTML) as
> mentioned in Section 6 of
> draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08. Stream is as defined in RFC
> 4844 (IETF, IAB, IRTF, or Independent) or Legacy*. In the case of IETF
> stream, the area and WG acronym are included.
>
> The following files will be updated on Monday (17 August 2009) to
> include Stream information:
>
> Hyperlinked index of RFCs:
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html  (ascending by RFC number)
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html (descending by RFC number)
>
> XML index of RFCs:
>   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml
>
> XML schema:
>   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xsd
>   Note: The new elements are <stream>, <area>, and <wg_acronym>.
>
> Each of these files is linked to from
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
>
> *As noted previously (regarding metadata pages), some RFCs are marked
> Legacy, indicating that source information was not recorded for this
> RFC; we are working on updating this information for RFCs for which it
> exists.
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor
>
>>From Section 6 of draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08:
>
>    Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
>    method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC
>    editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g., indices and
>    interfaces.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@...
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Julian Reschke]

RFC Editor wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> FYI, we have added stream information to RFC indices (XML and HTML) as
> mentioned in Section 6 of
> draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08. Stream is as defined in RFC
> 4844 (IETF, IAB, IRTF, or Independent) or Legacy*. In the case of IETF
> stream, the area and WG acronym are included.
> ...

Out of curiosity: why is it <wg_acronym>, not <wg-acronym>? (so far, the
vocabulary has used hyphens)

BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Bob Braden]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Is there any reason not to add the stream info to the .txt version
> of the index?
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>

Brian,

This is the result of a 10-year old policy at the RFC Editor. After
Joyce and I took over the job, the desire arose to add additional fields
to rfc-index.txt. However, input from various people in the community
convinced us that a fair number of hard-core Internauts had written
their own code to parse the obscure syntax of rfc-index.txt and reformat
it for their own purposes.  We feared that adding new fields to
rfc-index.txt would screw these people.  We therefore decided to freeze
the format of rfc-index.txt at the 1989 level, and instead make an html
version (and later an xml version) with extended fields.  So all changes
or extensions to the index format go only into the .xml and .html versions.

Now that XML has taken over the world, maybe this policy should be
revisited.

Bob Braden

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Fred Baker]

I would agree that people that are parsing rfc-index.txt should  
probably be using the XML version.

On Aug 18, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Bob Braden wrote:

>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for this.
>> Is there any reason not to add the stream info to the .txt version
>> of the index?
>> Regards
>>   Brian
>
> Brian,
>
> This is the result of a 10-year old policy at the RFC Editor. After  
> Joyce and I took over the job, the desire arose to add additional  
> fields to rfc-index.txt. However, input from various people in the  
> community convinced us that a fair number of hard-core Internauts  
> had written their own code to parse the obscure syntax of rfc-
> index.txt and reformat it for their own purposes.  We feared that  
> adding new fields to rfc-index.txt would screw these people.  We  
> therefore decided to freeze the format of rfc-index.txt at the 1989  
> level, and instead make an html version (and later an xml version)  
> with extended fields.  So all changes or extensions to the index  
> format go only into the .xml and .html versions.
>
> Now that XML has taken over the world, maybe this policy should be  
> revisited.
>
> Bob Braden
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@...
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Brian E Carpenter-2]

Fred,

I agree re machine parsing. My concern is that when human eyes look
at the txt file, they won't find the stream name. And for some purposes,
plain text is still more convenient than *ML. I certainly see Bob's
point about compatibility with pre-1989 awk scripts though ;-)

BTW, while we're on the subject, does anyone here maintain a BibTeX
version of the RFC index?

    Brian

On 2009-08-19 06:04, Fred Baker wrote:

> I would agree that people that are parsing rfc-index.txt should probably
> be using the XML version.
>
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Thanks for this.
>>> Is there any reason not to add the stream info to the .txt version
>>> of the index?
>>> Regards
>>>   Brian
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> This is the result of a 10-year old policy at the RFC Editor. After
>> Joyce and I took over the job, the desire arose to add additional
>> fields to rfc-index.txt. However, input from various people in the
>> community convinced us that a fair number of hard-core Internauts had
>> written their own code to parse the obscure syntax of rfc-index.txt
>> and reformat it for their own purposes.  We feared that adding new
>> fields to rfc-index.txt would screw these people.  We therefore
>> decided to freeze the format of rfc-index.txt at the 1989 level, and
>> instead make an html version (and later an xml version) with extended
>> fields.  So all changes or extensions to the index format go only into
>> the .xml and .html versions.
>>
>> Now that XML has taken over the world, maybe this policy should be
>> revisited.
>>
>> Bob Braden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list
>> Tools-discuss@...
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

[Lars Eggert-4]

On 2009-8-19, at 0:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> BTW, while we're on the subject, does anyone here maintain a BibTeX
> version of the RFC index?

Miguel Garcia has one, and googling "bibtext RFC" shows several more.

Lars

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest