@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed status from new to accepted

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

From Sam Weiler at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/4w_mqHZ8qgLO6kiCTax3p_6tIec/

When one BCP number points at two docs, e.g. BCP14, the tools site shows a concatenation of the RFCs:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14

The datatracker does inconsistent things. For BCP14, it only shows 2119, not 8174:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp14

For others, the datatracker misses all of the RFCs, instead pointing at an earlier i-d:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp6
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp9
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp13

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

The htmlized pages could (should?) just redirect to the rfceditor's info pages for BCPs.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp25

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed status from accepted to closed

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed resolution from `` to fixed

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

Fixed in 497a453:

Redirect requests for htmlized bcp or std subseries elements to the relevant rfc-editor info page. Fixes #3233. Commit ready for merge.

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

This only addresses the htmlized views. There is a larger problem remaining for how the datatracker models RFCs - see #2917

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

Fixed in 8dc7625:

Merged in 497a453 from rjsparks@nostrum.com:
Redirect requests for htmlized bcp or std subseries elements to the relevant rfc-editor info page. Fixes #3233.