Subject: [Tools-discuss] HEAD requests to tools.ietf.org/id/draft-...

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:59:48 +0100

Hi, I collect some I-Ds for offline reading in a local directory.
>From time to time I start a REXX script to get the latest versions,
it uses HEAD HTTP/1.0 requests, example reply:

| HTTP/1.1 302 Found
| Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:45:30 GMT
| Server: Apache/2.2.6 (Debian) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.4 [...]
| X-Docname: draft-hutzler-spamops
| X-Docbase: draft-hutzler-spamops
| X-Matches: 1
| X-Exact: True
| Location: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hutzler-spamops-08.txt
| Connection: close
| Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

In this case I'd like to know that this draft was published as
RFC 5068, what's a good way to do this ?  Could the tools server
redirect to the RFC in this case ?  I'm talking about text/plain
and HEAD, parsing text/html below <http://tools.ietf.org/html>
is out (my side is V.90, and the bandwidth of the tools servers
is also limited).

 Frank

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:17:35 +0100

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> ...

You may want to look at... 
<http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-hutzler-spamops/state.xml>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:04:33 +0100

> <http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-hutzler-spamops/state.xml>.

Interesting, but admittedly I'm still in the "can create XML"
state, "can parse XML" is significantly tougher if done from
scratch... ;-)

Oops, whatever creates state.xml, it has the same "abstract" 
oddity as the I-D submission tool (see parallel thread).

The .../draft/draft-hutzler.../state file is promising, same
info as in state.xml organized in lines instead of elements,
I could simply take the line starting with "Doc-url:".

Thanks, I didn't know this feature, is <ietfdoc> in need of a
"can create DTD" (in 2008) ?

 Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:44:23 +1300

> RFC 5068, what's a good way to do this ?  

One challenge with this is that there is no consistency about
this in the I-D tracker; recent drafts are annotated with the
RFC number but not older ones, so I don't see where tools.ietf.org
could get historical data.

A related issue is when draft-a is replaced by draft-b (for
example, when an individual submission is renamed as a WG draft).
Again, there is no consistency in the I-D tracker.

     Brian

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:38:39 -0800

On 2007-11-8, at 12:44, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> recent drafts are annotated with the

The secretariat database has this information eve for older drafts,  
if I remember correctly.

> Again, there is no consistency in the I-D tracker.

Right, that currently requires a manual ticket to the secretariat.

(I have a script that implements a heuristic to figure out replaced- 
by relations based on draft names, if anyone's interested.)

Lars

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:44:45 +0100

Hi Frank,

> oddity as the I-D submission tool (see parallel thread).

Yes; the data there comes from the abstract in the secretariat
database, ultimately.

> I could simply take the line starting with "Doc-url:".

Sounds like a good plan.  The XML file is actually created from the
'822' file, which is created from the history file, which is created
from 10+ different sources which are collected and diffed every
hour.

> "can create DTD" (in 2008) ?

Umm... here you lost me ,;-)

	Henrik