Subject: [Tools-discuss] New RFC errata procedure

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:54:46 +0100

Hi, I completely missed that there's a new "errata" procedure.
The tools servers also don't support it yet, e.g. 4408 + 4646
still get the old links:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=4408
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=4646

The new links with additional fresh errata are here:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4408
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4646

In the case of 2069 "fresh" doesn't exactly cover it, but...
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2069
...was published some days ago.

 Frank  

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:54:35 +0100

Hi Frank,

> The tools servers also don't support it yet, e.g. 4408 + 4646
...

I've been alerted about this, and have changed the scripts; I've
also asked the RFC Editor to add apache redirects to the new
URLs when they officially transition (I don't thin they've done
that yet).

However, there are a lot of html conversion page which still use the
old links, and as long as the old links also work, I'm going to
let the default conversion roll-over (every 3 months) take care of
this -- I don't want to introduce too much gratuitous churn in the
pages, as that will invite Google to scan them more often than
necessary, changing the load of the servers noticeably ...

(Looking at one of the 3 servers, I see an average 20.000 non-Google
accesses to the html version of drafts and RFCs per day, and 12.000
Google accesses, but before I lowered the re-generation frequency it
used to be more like 25.000 to 30.000 Google accesses per day ...)

	Henrik

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:45:36 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
 
> URLs when they officially transition

Yes, that would clean it up fast.  Or maybe they'll modify the old
Perl script to redirect to the new PHP pages.

> there are a lot of html conversion page which still use the old
> links, and as long as the old links also work, I'm going to let
> the default conversion roll-over (every 3 months) take care of
> this

Good, after waiting 33 months for the 2069 erratum 36 months is a
nice number... :-)  The worst part will be the "verification" of
"unverified" errata, it needs an A-D or something.  

> I don't want to introduce too much gratuitous churn in the pages,
> as that will invite Google to scan them more often than

Maybe get a "Webmaster" account for tools.ietf.org, then you can
tell Googlebot that it shouldn't look too often.  You can also say
so in a sitemap.xml, but I don't know if Googlebot respects that,
and I don't know if tools.ietf.org has a sitemap.xml (if yes it's
not yet listed in tools.ietf.org/robots.txt)

> I see an average 20.000 non-Google accesses to the html version
> of drafts and RFCs per day, and 12.000 Google accesses

Do you mean Google = Googlebot + family ?  The "rxgeturl" crap is
my script trying to update collected drafts on my local disk, if
you ever wanted to know. :-)

 Frank

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:26:20 +0100

Hi Frank,

> "unverified" errata, it needs an A-D or something.  

Hmm.  This makes me realise that I probably should trigger new
conversion when there's a change in errata status.  Mph.  Placed
on my mental to-do list, but quite far down, I'm afraid...

> not yet listed in tools.ietf.org/robots.txt)

I have one, but don't see that I can control googlebot visits with
the needed granularity.  Will check again, later today.

> Do you mean Google = Googlebot + family ?

Yes.  Any log line which contains "Gooblebot".

>  The "rxgeturl" crap is

I haven't had time to pore over the apache logs that closely in a
long time ... ;-)

	Henrik

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:32:26 -0200

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:54:46PM +0100,
 Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Hi, I completely missed that there's a new "errata" procedure.

AFAIK, it is still in beta test (do note the new interface does not
appear on the errata page, errors reported with the new interface are
not always listed, etc).