Subject: [xml2rfc] Fwd: Re: [Tools-discuss] STD series in bibxml

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:17:24 +1200

So, it has come to me that the bibxml data mostly doesn't convey the
most important single fact about an RFC: its current status.

To my mind it would be very desirable (even if we don't know today
exactly what we'd do with it) if at least a status tag like
"Historic" or "Proposed Standard" or anything in between was 
included.

The poster child is https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1700.xml
from which you can't tell that this RFC is Historic (it used to be 
STD 2, when STD 2 existed).

<seriesInfo name="Status" value="HISTORIC"/>
<seriesInfo name="Stream" value="[Legacy]"/> ??

The RFC Editor has this in their HTML rendering:

  <dt><b>Status:</b><dd>HISTORIC (changed from INTERNET STANDARD)</dd>
  <dt><b>Stream:</b><dd>[Legacy]</dd>

     Brian

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] STD series in bibxml
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 05:47:43 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] Discussion <[email-masked]>

On 2018-06-21 04:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> RFC 1700 is Historic and obsoleted by RFC3232. STD2 no longer exists,
> is not listed at https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards, so shouldn't
> appear in any (modern) metadata.
> 
> It would of course be good if the bibxml metadata included the status.
> I hope that's planned for v3.

I'm not aware of anything related to that.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:29:20 +0200

>    <dt><b>Stream:</b><dd>[Legacy]</dd>

Actually, v3 has *something*, see 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.seriesInfo.attribute.status> 
and 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.seriesInfo.attribute.stream>.

However, this was designed for the information known and fixed at time 
of publication, not for later updates to be reflected in <reference>s.

Best regards, Julian

PS: and please do not overload seriesInfo name/value with unrelated 
information... "Status" is not a publication series.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:39:34 +1200

> of publication, not for later updates to be reflected in <reference>s.

Right. But maybe references should reflect the status at the time of
citation, not at the time when the reference was published. The metadata
can be live even though the target document is frozen.
 
> information... "Status" is not a publication series.

Sure, that was just random scribbling, not careful design.

    Brian