Subject: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor

From: Mathieu Goessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:24:12 +0100

Hi folks,

The RFC4944 looks to be different in the version distributed by 
tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org / rfc-editor.org.

The figure 2 looks truncated on the tools.ietf.org version:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt

Do you know what is the problem ? Document generation problem ? Where it 
should be reported ?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Goessens,
IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France
Tel: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 00, Fax: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 71

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:12:31 +0100

On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Mathieu Goessens wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> The RFC4944 looks to be different in the version distributed by tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org / rfc-editor.org.
> 
> Do you know what is the problem ? Document generation problem ? Where it should be reported ?

These two documents were clearly derived from very different sources: the page breaks are also quite different.

How on earth did that happen?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Mathieu Goessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:32:43 +0100

On 25/03/2011 20:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> How on earth did that happen
I am not that sure: the page break is different precisely starting from
this figure.

I was more thinking about a different version of configuration of the
xml2rfc software.

Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Goessens

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:48:47 +0100

[Copying the RFC Editor to let them also check their records]

Note that the IANA registry is consistent with
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Mathieu Goessens
> Sent: 25 March 2011 21:33
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf and
> datatracker.ietf / rfc-editor
> 
tools.ietf.org
> and datatracker.ietf.org / rfc-editor.org.
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Mathieu Goessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:00:49 +0200

Thanks to the one who corrected it.

The html are pdf version are also wrong:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4944

The drafts are also wrong, both in txt, html and pdf:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-13.txt
(I did not check the older versions)

Any information about the problem ? It is limited to this RFC or can it
appears in some others ?

On 25/03/2011 21:48, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> These two documents were clearly derived from very different sources: the
>>>       
>> page breaks are also quite different.
>>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:34:20 +0200

Hi,

(I only now became aware of this thread.  Bob Hinden forwarded the original
message to me, but I didn't note at the time that it was a list message.)

Anyway, here's the story:

The tools site never overwrites existing RFCs, so if it would happen that
a RFC by mistake had been placed in the RFC Editor's repository with the
wrong text, any correction put in place after the tools site had done the
initial download would not be overwritten.  I assumed that's what happened
here, and moved the first tools out of the way so that a new copy was
downloaded from the RFC Editor's repository.

I was in a rush at that time, however, preparing for the Saturday code sprint,
so I didn't take care to make the .pdf and .html copies be regenerated, which
is of course needed.  Done now, which takes care of the first part of the
comment below:

> http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4944

Fixed.

> (I did not check the older versions)

However, this I don't understand.  Drafts are never edited after being
submitted, so the explanation for how there could be 2 different copies
of the RFC doesn't apply here.  Furthermore, for the drafts above, I
don't see links to two conflicting copies -- in which way do you mean
that the drafts "are also wrong"?

> Any information about the problem ? It is limited to this RFC or can it

I've come across I think two previous instances of the tools site grabbing
an early copy of an RFC, which was corrected before being announced, and I
handled that in the same way as this case.  The RFC editor's copy is always
the correct one, the way I see it.  I'm about to do a run across all of the
RFCs now on tools.ietf.org to see if there are any other cases of this.

Regards,

	Henrik
	perpetrator of (almost) all things tools.ietf.org

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:39:34 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mathieu Goessens" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'Paul Hoffman'"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Differences between RFC4944 as distributed by tools.ietf
anddatatracker.ietf / rfc-editor

> that the drafts "are also wrong"?

Perhaps an XML to RFC issue:-)

Up to -06 (Nov 2006), each packet format was a separate numbered figure.

>From -07, the one line formats at the start of the document were no longer
given the caption 'Figure nn'  but still contributed to the running count of
figure numbers, so the first numbered figure was Figure 7.  This persisted
until -13 after which the RFC Editor put things 'right' in the RFC as published.

Tom Petch

---

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:02:14 -0700

Greetings,

Just to clarify, please note that the version available
in the RFC Editor repository
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt) is dated 24 Sept 2007, and
the RFC was announced on 25 Sept 2007.  The document has not been
altered or updated since it was published.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

RFC Editor

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:29:10 +0200

On 2011-03-28 11:39 t.petch said the following:
...
> From: "Henrik Levkowetz"<[email-masked]>
...
>> On 2011-03-27 03:00 Mathieu Goessens said the following:
...
> until -13 after which the RFC Editor put things 'right' in the RFC as published.

Ah, ok.  That means there's nothing in this part which I need to fix on the
tools servers.  Which is fine by me :-)

Best,

	Henrik