Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Detect when IETF specs gets obsoleted / replaced by another one #327

Closed
dontcallmedom opened this issue Jul 2, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1138
Closed

Detect when IETF specs gets obsoleted / replaced by another one #327

dontcallmedom opened this issue Jul 2, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1138

Comments

@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member

The information is available either through https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml or via individual https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfcXXXX.json. specref also exposes it.

Complements to #280
@tidoust
Copy link
Member

tidoust commented Nov 22, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Detection of replacement is part of #1135, and based on the datatracker API.

Detection of obsolescence indeed appears in https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfcXXXX.json. It is in the datatracker API as well but not as readily available: The list of obsoleted by relationships appears in https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/relateddocument/?relationship__slug__in=obs (~1500 relations) but I cannot find a direct way to filter that list for a given target document.

(Edit) Actually, filetering seems to work, provided that the name used is the rfc2818 and not the "draft" name, e.g. https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/relateddocument/?relationship__slug__in=obs&target__name__in=rfc2818

@tidoust
Copy link
Member

tidoust commented Nov 22, 2023

Digging into it, I note that we currently list 8 IETF specs that have been obsoleted by another RFC (typically by RFC9110, RFC9111 or RFC9112:

These specs should be flagged as "discontinued" and obsoleted by the newer RFCs.

tidoust added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 23, 2023
@tidoust
Fix and improve processing of IETF specs
f1ec747 
Take 3 :)

PR #1135 actually had a couple of issues that made the code essentially useless
because it only ran on a handful of IETF specs:
- the code favored info from Specref over info from IETF
- the code only really applied to drafts due to a buggy RegExp

Fixing these problems yielded a new issue: the assumption that HTTP WG specs
are always available under `httpwg.org` turns out to be wrong. Also, there are
other specs that are not published by the HTTP WG but that still have an
`httpwg.org` version. The code now looks at the actual list of specs in the
underlying GitHub repository: https://github.com/httpwg/httpwg.github.io.

As a result, the nightly URL of all IETF specs that have an `httpwg.org`
version now targets that version, implementing the suggestion in #933 (see
that issue for the list of affected specs). A companion PR was sent to Specref
to implement a similar switch there:
tobie/specref#766

The code also looks at the obsolescence data in datatracker and sets the
`standing` and `obsoletedBy` properties accordingly. This fixes #327.
@tidoust tidoust mentioned this issue Nov 23, 2023
Merged
tidoust added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 23, 2023
@tidoust
Fix and improve processing of IETF specs (#1138)
e67ff26 
Take 3 :)

PR #1135 actually had a couple of issues that made the code essentially useless
because it only ran on a handful of IETF specs:
- the code favored info from Specref over info from IETF
- the code only really applied to drafts due to a buggy RegExp

Fixing these problems yielded a new issue: the assumption that HTTP WG specs
are always available under `httpwg.org` turns out to be wrong. Also, there are
other specs that are not published by the HTTP WG but that still have an
`httpwg.org` version. The code now looks at the actual list of specs in the
underlying GitHub repository: https://github.com/httpwg/httpwg.github.io.

As a result, the nightly URL of all IETF specs that have an `httpwg.org`
version now targets that version, implementing the suggestion in #937.
A companion PR was sent to Specref to implement a similar switch there:
tobie/specref#766

The code also looks at the obsolescence data in datatracker and sets the
`standing` and `obsoletedBy` properties accordingly. This fixes #327.
tidoust added a commit to w3c/webref that referenced this issue Nov 24, 2023
@tidoust
Temporarily force crawl of discontinued RFCs
8c8fb8e 
The status of some RFCs that used to be crawled by Reffy has recently (and
correctly) been switched to discontinued, see list in:
w3c/browser-specs#327 (comment)

There are a bunch (*) of specs that still reference these discontinued specs.
This update makes Reffy continue to crawl the RFCs to give us more time to
update all specs, or at least to alert them that they need some update.

(*) I will prepare an explicit list of such specs.
@tidoust tidoust mentioned this issue Nov 24, 2023
Merged
tidoust added a commit to w3c/webref that referenced this issue Nov 24, 2023
@tidoust
Temporarily force crawl of discontinued RFCs (#1095)
f5d729e 
The status of some RFCs that used to be crawled by Reffy has recently (and
correctly) been switched to discontinued, see list in:
w3c/browser-specs#327 (comment)

There are a bunch (*) of specs that still reference these discontinued specs.
This update makes Reffy continue to crawl the RFCs to give us more time to
update all specs, or at least to alert them that they need some update.

(*) I will prepare an explicit list of such specs.
@tidoust tidoust mentioned this issue Nov 24, 2023
Open
43 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Fix and improve processing of IETF specs w3c/browser-specs
2 participants
@dontcallmedom @tidoust