Template talk:Cite IETF

Release date
Could anyone give an estimate of the date this template is going live? I think I can use this template very much... —— Da n do r iD (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

https
Can the template be changed to point to https instead of http? I.e. https://tools.ietf.org/ ? -- 194.246.123.103 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Superm401 - Talk 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

citation class
IETF document means that the HTML class is set to two classes: 'IETF' and 'document'. The space should be removed or replaced. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops... I've gone ahead and replaced it with an underscore. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Make publisher always IETF?
Since the template is designed specifically for IETF-published documents, can we just always pass IETF to citation/core? If not, we could at least default to that if the parameter is omitted. Superm401 - Talk 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, since that's the conservative approach. I can't think of any reason to pass anything else, though. &mdash;SamB (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, passing IETF as a default for the publisher parameter breaks cases where this template is used for shortened footnotes. I tried the same thing when I created this template and had to default it to being blank for this reason. There may yet be a better way to do this, but I never could figure out an easy way to make it work. If anyone happens to have any questions about the way this template was designed, try pinging me on my talk page since I can get notifications for those. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At one time there were some examples of shortened footnotes on the template's documentation page, but they seem to have disappeared. Cite IETF/regression tests also contains some examples. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and those are now, see "RFC 1739" in #References. That bug was in and .   --Tothwolf (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * as you seem to have guessed, I had no idea the template was intended for such usage. And when I read "examples", I was kind of expecting them to be shown with code and called out as an illustration of how to use (as it turns out) ietf and ietf.  And most of the publisher-less invocations on the regression tests page don't seem to fit the description on WP:SFN?  &mdash;SamB (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... The short version is that back when I was actively working on this template, I got interrupted and was never able to go back and finish what I had been working on. The links near the top of my talk page should fill you in somewhat, but there is still a larger story which hasn't yet been told (which I won't go into here since it would be off-topic for this talk page). I mainly used the regression tests page to make sure I didn't break an existing function while working on the rest of the code and hadn't really intended for it to be used for usage examples. The documentation for this template could definitely benefit from expansion and more examples if you or anyone else reading along feels like having a go at it. I know this template's code is somewhat complex, although I tried to make it as readable and maintainable as possible. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Parameters
Parameter issues: ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * laysource; missing
 * publication-date; missing
 * dateformat; no longer supported by core
 * access-date; deprecated

Bad formatting when using editors and section links
The following code:



Generates the following result:



Note the editor name isn't marked as such, and appears in the wrong place compared with usage without a section link. I think it should look more like this:


 * Blogs, Joe (January 1970). Blags, Joan. ed. "Section name". Title. sec 1. RFC 1234.

Usage without a section name shows up sensibly:



As does without any editors:



I attempted to fix this myself, but took one look at the template markup and ran away.

Help?

—me_and 20:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the style used by Chicago and APA, which this template series uses. Per the documentation:
 * If authors: Authors are first, followed by the included work, then "In" and the editors, then the main work.
 * If no authors: Editors appear before the included work; a single editor is followed by "ed."; multiple editors are followed by "eds."; more than three editors will be followed by "et al., eds."
 * You apparently substed the output causing it to dump the entire core template, and I'm not wading through that to see what you did. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yuk. Sorry about the syntax dump, I hadn't realized it would dump out quite like that. I've now fixed up my original post.
 * I think the documentation is bogus as well as the template: sections aren't "included works" in a compilation, they're divisions within a single work: section in this context has a similar level of division to a chapter in a book, except chapters don't normally have a concept of "subchapters".
 * Thank you for taking the time to look at this, nonetheless.
 * —me_and 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it isn't a compilation, why are there editors? We don't list the editors of a journal. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea, but it's reasonably common for IETF RFCs. Look at RFC 3312 or RFC 5839 for example, both of which have both authors and editors. They're listed as "Ed."s next to the document authors, so omitting them or specifying them as authors both seems incorrect.
 * We handle the case without editors correctly: we just give the section name and the document title, and don't say the former is "In" the latter. When there are editors present, my best guess is we go down a duff branch in the template parsing (presumably copied/transcluded from elsewhere) where a "section" is incorrectly treated as a stand-alone work.
 * —me_and 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. this template uses citation/core and this is how editors are formatted. When we get this updated to Lua, we have a lot more flexibility, but this template is down the queue a bit.
 * In the meantime, figure out how you would like this formatted, start a discussion and get consensus. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the OP, the version marked "I think it should look more like this" is how I think it should look :)
 * I do take the point that fixing it properly now is probably not worth the effort if there's some major changes on the way. Is there anywhere other than here I should be trying to establish consensus?
 * (Also, we're adding Lua for template scripting? Awesome!) —me_and 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just try to get some discussion on this. And Lua is here and being implemented; see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Updates. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Documentation substed prior to CS1 module update
The "csdoc" Citation Style 1 documentation subtemplates that were being used by this template's documentation will be updated next week to remove all of the descriptions of how non-Lua templates are rendered. This template does not use the CS1 Lua module, so the documentation it transcluded (until a few minutes ago) would have become even more inaccurate than it already was. Because of this, I have substed all of the current documentation subtemplates into this template's documentation page.

In slightly less technical terms, this citation template uses citation/core to render citations, but other Citation Style 1 citations that used citation/core, like cite book, have been migrated to use a Lua module. The module has features and changes that have been updated over the past two years and that do not apply, and never have applied, to this template.

Someone may want to check the documentation for this template against its actual function and adjust the documentation accordingly. I believe that it is not accurate. You can visit Help talk:Citation Style 1 or respond here if you have any questions. I will watch this page for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This template is still using the old version as of today. Parameters like  or   don't exist, though   does. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (edited: 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Discrepancy between template & documentation re author link for multiple authors
Documentation says "for multiple authors, use author-link1", but this parameter format doesn't work. Either the template code or the documentation needs to be changed. Nurg (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

new sandbox version that abandons citation/core
The current live version of relies on  which is obsolete and not actively maintained.

There is a new sandbox version of this template that uses Module:Template wrapper to feed parameters to Module:Citation/CS1 as if this template were. Doing this allows to support all of the parameters that  supports and renders this template in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the cs1|2 family of templates – the sandbox set cs1 so that the rendering is in the same format as.

There is an extensive testcases page. I have modified that page to use which compares the output from the live template to the output of the sandbox template. When the two outputs are the same, produces a collapsed box with a green header; when not the same, an uncollapsed box with a yellow header. At the time of this writing, all of the boxes in the testcases page have yellow headers because Module:Citation/CS1 and create different html. For example, testcase #1 is this:
 * – live
 * – sandbox
 * live:
 * sandbox:
 * sandbox:
 * sandbox:

Some things that 'work' in the live template do not work in the sandbox version. These things are listed below by testcase number:
 * 2. cs1|2 requires that all templates have a title; this testcase has a section name but no title to indicate what the section belongs to
 * 13. both versions of this template create urls (essentially url) from rfc. In the live version, that url is applied to sectionname.  cs1|2 constrains url to apply only to title but, because there is no title, there is a missing title error.  Applying a title corrects the problem (see testcase 15)
 * 15. because cs1|2 constrains url to apply only to title, in the sandbox version, sectionname is not linked by the url created from rfc but title is; this is correct because a url to the whole document belongs to the title of the whole document, not to a section of that document
 * 26. same as 15
 * 31. same as 15
 * 33. same as 15
 * 38. same as 15
 * 48. same as 2
 * 49. same as 2
 * 52. this is perplexing.
 * This:
 * produces this, which is what Module:Template wrapper sends to :
 * that template renders this way:
 * but this is the output of the template:
 * I don't understand why the '(PDF)' annotation that should follow the section name has been omitted
 * 57. same as 2
 * 63. same as 2
 * 69. same as 2
 * 70. same as 2
 * 71. same as 15
 * 79. same as 2
 * 80. same as 2
 * 81. same as 15
 * 71. same as 15
 * 79. same as 2
 * 80. same as 2
 * 81. same as 15

I have to noodle-out testcase 52. Once I've done that, I propose to update the live template with the code in the sandbox. Comments? Objections?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Testcase 52 problem occurs because builds the section url fragment with the numeric entity   in stead of with a   character.  It does this because the   character is reserved to MediaWiki for ordered list markup.  Module:Citation/CS1 is looking for a   character fragment delimiter when it test urls to see if it should set an internal version of section-format to PDF.  The fix for this is likely not here be at Module:Citation/CS1.  I have made that change to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
 * Now, testcase 52 rendering are different because does not have support for internal creation of any of the various format parameters supported by the Lua module suite.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There having been no objections, updated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a lot for this update ; I've long requested this update. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fix this weird behaviour
The following gives This is very weird. It should give something much closer to or, if the automatic DOI/URL are desired

i.e. RFC 1234 should be &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

sectionname= gets error message "|section= ignored"
works normally.

But gets the error message

What I would like is the section number and name displayed, with a link to the section URL; I don't see a section-url parameter in the documentation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whenever asking for assistance, please provide examples that show the problem right out of the box. In order to see what you are seeing I have had to reconstruct these templates from the peculiar format that you used; don't make my life harder than it already is.


 * Here are your templates rewritten with sufficient parameters to show the issue without unnecessary clutter:
 * The renderings are different because you are misusing the template.  is a wrapper template around .  That template uses work and its aliases as a trigger to shift from 'book' mode to 'periodical' mode.  section is an alias of chapter neither of which is supported by  when it is in 'periodical' mode.
 * 'Best Current Practice' is not the title of a periodical. In RFC 5068, 'Best Current Practice' is identified as a 'category'; in the RFC index, 'Best Current Practice' is the 'status' of the RFC.
 * So, I think that the correct form for citing section 5 of RFC 5068 is this (leaving out the same parameters as I did above):
 * There is support for section-url but it has been too long since I have had anything to do with this template so I no longer remember what it does and I am occupied with other things at the moment. You might look in Template:cite ietf/testcases to see if one of those illustrates the parameter's use.  If you can discover how it is used, please write a bit of documentation so that others won't have to do the same.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Best Current Practice' is not the title of a periodical. In RFC 5068, 'Best Current Practice' is identified as a 'category'; in the RFC index, 'Best Current Practice' is the 'status' of the RFC.
 * So, I think that the correct form for citing section 5 of RFC 5068 is this (leaving out the same parameters as I did above):
 * There is support for section-url but it has been too long since I have had anything to do with this template so I no longer remember what it does and I am occupied with other things at the moment. You might look in Template:cite ietf/testcases to see if one of those illustrates the parameter's use.  If you can discover how it is used, please write a bit of documentation so that others won't have to do the same.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is support for section-url but it has been too long since I have had anything to do with this template so I no longer remember what it does and I am occupied with other things at the moment. You might look in Template:cite ietf/testcases to see if one of those illustrates the parameter's use.  If you can discover how it is used, please write a bit of documentation so that others won't have to do the same.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is support for section-url but it has been too long since I have had anything to do with this template so I no longer remember what it does and I am occupied with other things at the moment. You might look in Template:cite ietf/testcases to see if one of those illustrates the parameter's use.  If you can discover how it is used, please write a bit of documentation so that others won't have to do the same.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First, thanks.


 * Second, are you saying to use  instead of   when describing issues with foo or are you referring to the substitution of   for  ?


 * Third, I was changing an existing citation from cite web to cite ietf and left in an existing work= parameter; I would not have added that were I writing ab initio. But that raises three other questions:
 * Shouldn't there be a better error message for the invalid work= parameter on cite ietf?
 * Is there a valid way to indicate the status of an RFC on cite ietf?
 * Providing both rfc= and std= on the same RFC, e.g.,  seems to work; is it valid?


 * Fourth, when I remove the invalid work= parameter, cite ietf provides a section link without the need for a section-url= parameter. I assume that's why it isn't documented. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Second: Yes,  tags wrapping templates to be discussed as you did for question #3. The first thing I did after reading your initial post was to copy your two examples from the rendered page so that I could see what you were seeing.  That did not work.  I did not see an error message.  If you look at your second example you will see this:
 * Inside, author5, date, work are parameters.  Those parameter names are not supported by  so are ignored.  To see what you were seeing, I had to rewrite your examples.
 * Third answers:
 * is a wrapper template around which is rendered by Module:Citation/CS1.  The module knows only that it is rendering a  template and that you are asking it to render something that it cannot.  It cannot know from a handful of parameters which of them you really mean to use so I made the arbitrary choice of using the same error detection and reporting scheme that is used for the cs1 templates that do not support chapter and its aliases; that way only one error detection and reporting mechanism is required for similar problems.
 * the purpose of citations is to help the reader locate a copy of the source that supports the text in an en.wiki article. It is not clear to me that an IETF RFC status indicator in a citation helps to accomplish that purpose.  The status of an IETF RFC will change over time so citations with a status indicator will require maintenance when the status does change.
 * I have no answer. I did not write this template.  I came here only to disconnect the old template from the no-longer-supported-or-maintained.
 * Fourth: work is not documented here because it was not part of the original template but is available as a parameter (all  parameters are available for use).  I see no reason to document it.  Another, I think more likely, reason for section-url is to link sectionname to someplace other than the IETF website's copy – a mirror perhaps, for this example,  :
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fourth: work is not documented here because it was not part of the original template but is available as a parameter (all  parameters are available for use).  I see no reason to document it.  Another, I think more likely, reason for section-url is to link sectionname to someplace other than the IETF website's copy – a mirror perhaps, for this example,  :
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

RFCs and access-date
RFCs never change. If an IETF specification has to be changed, a new RFC with a new number is published, which updates or deprecates the old RFC. So there is little point in adding "Retrieved on " when citing an RFC.

Maybe this should be removed from the examples? Or, if it is desirable for reasons of consistency, maybe a short note about that should be added? --Ehlo127001 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

|doi-access= problem
I'm not in the mood to fix this now. When doi is present but empty, and when rfc has a value, this template sets free. Compare:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New site datatracker.ietf.org
The  now redirects to. For example https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc114 redirects to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc114. The Template:IETF RFC was updated already accordingly. Thanks. Prikryl (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDOIT. Guy Harris (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not dare. The template is complex and it's not obviously clear to me, what to change and what consequences it would have. Prikryl (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's OK, its subtemplates have pointed to datatracker.ietf.org since at least 2021, so there's nothing to do. Guy Harris (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have no idea, why I've though otherwise. Sorry. Prikryl (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Some comment on this datatracker url and difference in visualization:
 * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4677/ or https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-esni/ - has a nice timeline at the top, and tabs to see the: "IESG evaluation record" and "IESG writeups", and also a compare function in the History tab.
 * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4677/ - It's the current URL being used by this template.

It would not matter much if the way to go from the non-timeline version to the one showing the timeline was more clear. I had to Ctrl+F in the page source code to find, it's the blue datatracker button at the top of the sidepanel. And to go from the timeline version to the non-timeline version is more straightforward, it's the "htmlized" blue button.

Maybe it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer the timeline version. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Arthurfragoso!
 * I also liked your hint but I still feel insecure when editing here on the enwiki. I work more there on ptwiki.
 * If you really want your suggestion integrated into the template, click here, and do the following:
 * Remove " " from the code line #13 and publish.
 * Commenting " " inside   might work too, but I'm not sure. Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and also a compare function in the History tab A compare function is also available in the sidebar in the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4677/ view.  You don't get the timeline, or the tabs, however. Guy Harris (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)