Subject: [Tools-discuss] Replaced-by inconsistencies

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:50:01 -0500

It looks to me like the replaced-by information in drafts is being 
applied inconsistently.

For example, if you look at:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-sipping-199-04

The "Versions" line reads "00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-sip-199", which is 
correct -- that is, because draft-ietf-sip-199 replaced 
draft-holmberg-sipping-199, it appears after all the versions.

If you click on the draft-ietf-sip-199 link, you get taken here:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-199-08

The "Versions" line links back to the draft that it replaced. Great!

Now, lets look at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements-01

It correctly links back to 
draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements, which it replaced. So 
far, so good. However, if you go to 
draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-03

There's no link forward to the sipcore draft! The "Versions" line just 
goes up to 03, and stops.

Certainly the tools should understand that the "replaces"/"replaced by" 
relationship is reciprocal. Is this database corruption, or incomplete 
data entry? It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident (cf., 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-00) -- I would 
propose that an audit of the "replaces"/"replaced by" relationship data 
is in order...

/a

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:01:23 +0200

Hi Adam,

The explanation is that the generated html files aren't always up-to-date,
and the reason for that in turn is a bit more complex:  

   1) The load (number of accesses) on the html converted drafts and
   RFCs is sufficiently high that the 4 servers currently available
   wouldn't be able to handle it if the html version was dynamically
   generated in order to be fully up-to-date,

   2) I try to keep the update frequency low, as I don't want search
   engines to believe that they have to check the whole 65,000+ corpus
   every day in order to catch changes...

This means that 

   a) I have a very long re-generation period of ~3 months -- unless
   something about the document state changes, a document is only re-
   generated if it is older than 3 months.  That re-generation is done
   mainly to catch updates to the conversion tool, which happens now
   and then (see http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/changelog).

   b) In order to catch status changes in documents, an explicit re-
   generation has to be triggered when something changes which should
   be reflected in the html document.  Re-generation is now triggered
   when a new version of a draft appears, when a draft appears in the
   datatracker, when a document is published as an RFC, and in some
   other cases.

However, regeneration when new replaced-by information appears has not
up to now been triggered.  Which I'm now about to fix :-)

Best,

	Henrik

On 2009-07-18 12:50 Adam Roach said the following:
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:17:35 -0500

Thanks for the explanation! That makes perfect sense. And I'm glad it's 
being fixed.

/a