Subject: [Tools-discuss] missing DC.Creator in some RFCs for HTML versions

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:24:59 -0500

A handful of published RFCs have an author/editor listed, but do not
include any <meta> tags that identify DC.Creator.  They're listed at the
end of this e-mail.

I don't know why they're missing, but it would be great if we could
refresh these RFCs HTML versions so that they have the correct metadata
elements.

Regards,

        --dkg

published RFCs that are missing DC.Creator tags:

  rfc109
  rfc206
  rfc347
  rfc571
  rfc588
  rfc616
  rfc1465
  rfc1591
  rfc2070
  rfc2201
  rfc2279
  rfc2634
  rfc2886
  rfc2901
  rfc2941
  rfc2946
  rfc2953
  rfc3117
  rfc3296
  rfc3305
  rfc3564
  rfc3619
  rfc5540
  rfc5941
  rfc6207
  rfc6262
  rfc6414
  rfc6604

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:31:01 +0100

Hi Daniel,

I'll respond to all 3 DC\..* subject emails in one, as the response is
pretty much the same: The underlying code is quite old, varying from
10 to 15 years old by this time, and did not (and does not) have any of
the sophisticated data available which we have today through the
datatracker database.  It does not have the ability, for instance, to
differentiate between author sets for different versions of the document.

Rewriting the code today to fetch information from the database instead
would give much better results.  That's not on the table at present, but
is something I might spend some time on when all the xml2rfc and idnits
rewrite deliverables are out, and I've recovered.  Maybe in the spring.

However, with respect to author information for old RFCs and drafts, the
datatracker also has missing information.  In a different context it has
recently been discussed whether to try to manually fill in the gaps in
that information.  The format of early drafts and RFCs are sufficiently
irregular that I don't see anything but manual data entry as workable.

Best regards,

	Henrik

On 2018-12-11 21:24, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [email-masked]
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [email-masked]
>

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:00:20 -0500

hi Henrik--

thanks for the quick feedback!

> differentiate between author sets for different versions of the document.

i see, thanks.

> rewrite deliverables are out, and I've recovered.  Maybe in the spring.

thanks for that timeline!

fwiw, i don't see a way to use the datatracker's web interface to get
metadata about older drafts either :/

Is access to the datatracker's database public (either via RESTful API
or some other mechanism)?  Should i be pursuing the kind of larger
search/scan capabiities i'm trying to build via
[email-masked] (or somewhere else) instead of
[email-masked]?

> irregular that I don't see anything but manual data entry as workable.

There aren't all that many early drafts and RFCs, so i think manual data
entry isn't unreasonable.  If everyone reading this list pitched in and
did data entry for 10 or 20 documents, we'd probably be able to fill in
the gaps.  is there a way that we can let people actually do that data
entry so that it's useful for everyone else?

Again, i can do all this stuff by hand, for my own projects, or i can do
it so that it's useful for everyone.

      --dkg

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:30:03 +0100

Hi Daniel,

> metadata about older drafts either :/

Two approaches:

Eyeballs; go to the history tab for the draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dkg-dprive-demux-dns-http/history/

Machine readable; fetch the json blob for the draft (there's also a more
complex API that will let you get at practically all the data in the database,
see datatracker.ietf.org/api/):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dkg-dprive-demux-dns-http/doc.json

> or some other mechanism)? 

Yes, see a brief description at datatracker.ietf.org/api/.  I've just added
a description of the simplified document json to that page in my source
tree, too; that will be part of the next datatracker release.

> Should i be pursuing the kind of larger

Either is fine by me; talking about it on this list will make the info
you elicit available to more people.

> the gaps. 

Agreed :-)

> is there a way that we can let people actually do that data

At the moment, the datatracker doesn't have an open interface where people
could update meta-information.  Let Robert and me think a bit about the best
approach to this.

> it so that it's useful for everyone.

Understood.  The latter is of course better, but will involve a bit of work
for me and maybe Robert, too.  That's perfectly fine and appropriate.

Best regards,

	Henrik