Subject: [Tools-discuss] another case of links not updating

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 10:27:15 -0400 (EDT)

I see another case of links in older drafts not updating that there is a
newer draft.

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind-03

There is a -04 version but it is not indicating this.

The -04 is also not listed in the 00 to 03 version.

It's not a "timing" thing either as the -04 was submitted on April 30.

This issue has been present for years and I reported back on this many
times. Perhaps the tools team can share where this code lives, so that
others including me can have a look at it.

Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 09:56:14 -0500

Paul -

To be very clear, the tools team does not operate tools.ietf.org. That 
is a contribution from Henrik alone.

The tools team has been working on integrating the best of what's at 
tools.ietf.org into tools that we collaboratively maintain, such as the 
datatracker. The datatracker has an html-ized version of the draft you 
mention at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind-04.

RjS

On 5/6/20 9:27 AM, Paul Wouters 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: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 10:03:12 -0500

Ah - bad cut-paste, sorry.

I intended to send this link: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind/

RjS

On 5/6/20 9:56 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> tools.ietf.org into tools that we collaboratively maintain, such as 
> the datatracker. The datatracker has an html-ized version of the draft 
> you mention at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind-04.
>
> RjS
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 17:36:52 +0200

Hi Paul,

> It's not a "timing" thing either as the -04 was submitted on April 30.

Right.  It's a matter of a cache invalidation trigger sometimes failing.

> others including me can have a look at it.

The metadata handling and cache invalidation on tools.ietf.org resides in
old bash scripts that have not gotten a lot of attention lately, to a
large extent because my time has been dedicated to datatracker and xml2rfc
work the last few years.  With the importance of getting the xml2rfc schema
v3 launced and the effort of moving other tools to the datatracker, the
maintenance of the tools.ietf.org site has fallen behind.

It's work I want to do, but the hours I have are limited.  I've fixed the
immediate issue, and will try to find time to debug the root cause.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 13:58:31 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 6 May 2020, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

Thanks for the quick rpely Henrik,

> Right.  It's a matter of a cache invalidation trigger sometimes failing.

Yes, I remember talking about this before. But that trigger bug only
reflects to recent updates. All the past issues where the trigger did
not happen would need to be found and corrected as well.

So I thought the solution we thought of at that time was to go over the
entire archive and fixup all the broken ones automatically. That would
be independent of this cache bug or other future bugs ?

> maintenance of the tools.ietf.org site has fallen behind.

I do understand and I do appreciate the time you spend on xml2rfc, as
I'm a frequent user of it. But I do think this bug needs a bit more
priority, since it has been years, and I only find out about missing
references on my own drafts. It is really unclear how many references I
miss on other people's drafts when I don't know they exist because the
tracker might not show me. Personally, now when I read a "latest" draft,
I always increase the number by one to see if I'm not missing something :/

> immediate issue, and will try to find time to debug the root cause.

Thanks. I'll ping you again when I have some more time myself in a few
weeks to see if we can get me setup to look at the current code and/or
dbase to see the scope of the issue and look at fixing the bug and the
old references.

Cheers,

Paul

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 20:09:46 +0200

Hi Paul,

> I always increase the number by one to see if I'm not missing something :/

Ouch.  Ok, point taken.

> dbase to see the scope of the issue and look at fixing the bug and the

Ack.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 13:15:20 -0500

On 5/6/20 12:58 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> tracker might not show me.

Paul -

Again, just to be very clear, I think what you mean by that last 
sentence is that when you think there's a new draft, you go to 
tools.ietf.org and are frustrated occasionally because the redirect 
handler for the name without a draft there doesn't redirect to what 
should be the current version. That is, by 'tracker' you mean the pages 
on tools.ietf.org.

The datatracker doesn't have this problem.

RjS

> Personally, now when I read a "latest" draft,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 08:28:21 +1200

For the record, I'm not seeing any problem with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind
or
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind-03
both of which indicate -04 as the latest version.

Browser cache?

Regards
   Brian

On 07-May-20 03:03, Robert Sparks wrote:
> .

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 22:31:09 +0200

Hi Robert,

> On 2020-05-06, at 20:15, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

That is good to know.

Paul’s insistence on a fix is also an indication that we continue to rely on the tools server.  Its format for presenting RFCs, and the links that point to it, are still widely used by many people, inside and outside the IETF.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 08:31:11 +1200

Oh... that'll teach me to read entire threads before replying...

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 22:32:36 +0200

> Browser cache?

$ curl -I https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pwouters-powerbind-03
[…]
Last-Modified: Wed, 06 May 2020 16:02:46 GMT

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 15:35:19 -0500

> Paul’s insistence on a fix is also an indication that we continue to rely on the tools server.  Its format for presenting RFCs, and the links that point to it, are still widely used by many people,…

Yes, and it is on the plan to have the datatracker html-ized view use 
the same style (the content is already essentially the same).

I understand that there are a lot of places that point into tools.ietf.org.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 23:36:20 -0400 (EDT)

> Again, just to be very clear, I think what you mean by that last sentence is 
> that when you think there's a new draft, you go to tools.ietf.org and are 
> frustrated occasionally because the redirect handler for the name without a 
> draft there doesn't redirect to what should be the current version. That is, 
> by 'tracker' you mean the pages on tools.ietf.org.

Yes. What really happens is I go to google, type in
"draft-pwouters-powerbind", which gets me the tools.ietf.org page. I
click it, then I might be on 02 where it also says 03 because of google
caching or more links having been made to -02 to get better page
ranking, then when I am on -03, which appears as the latest, I manually
change the url to +1 and see if i get file not found. then I know -03
is really the latest.

> The datatracker doesn't have this problem.

I don't like the datatracker page as much, because it's kind of awkward
to click on the tiny html button to get the html version, which is the
tools page. Also, sometimes when googling for the draft gives me too
many wrong hits, I add the word "tools" to the search to get me the
tools.ietf.org version.

Paul

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 05:35:53 +0200

On 06.05.2020 22:31, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> ...

Which reminds me that for drafts published using V3 XML, we now have a
public URI for the proper HTML version to link to, but these URIs get
broken when the draft expires.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 23:39:32 -0400 (EDT)

> Paul’s insistence on a fix is also an indication that we continue to rely on the tools server.  Its format for presenting RFCs, and the links that point to it, are still widely used by many people,…

Well, if you click on the "html version" within datatracker, that _is_
the tools.ietf.org page. But yes, I could google for "datatracker
draft-name" and perhaps land on a better always latest version, but
that would still mean if I go from there to the tools version, and
go one version back there, I would be on a page that is not telling
me there is an -04. And we all use tabs in our browser for many days,
so I might still get fooled into thinking that non-last version was
the last one :)

Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 09:05:22 -0500

On 5/6/20 10:35 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Paul’s insistence on a fix is also an indication that we continue to 
>> rely on the tools server.  Its format for presenting RFCs, and the 
>> links that point to it, are still widely used by many people, inside 
>> and outside the IETF.
>> ...
>

Thanks - I've captured that as a ticket.

FWIW: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-reschke-http-jfv-10.html