Update any rfcnnnn.json files when publishing RFCs

[ajeanmahoney]

rfcnnnn.json files contain obsoleted_by and updated_by fields. If an RFC is obsoleted by or updated by another RFC, the JSON file needs to be updated upon the publication of that updating/obsoleting RFC. For example, RFC 9975 (published 26 May) updates RFCs 7344 and 7477. The info pages on Red show that these RFCs have been updated, but their JSON files do not:

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7477/
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7477.json
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7344/
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7344.json

[rudimatz]

I think this should be considered a red bug

[rjsparks]

This is the same issue as #10933, and it's a bug in datatracker's functionality. These will be addressed together

[alicerusso]

Would it be possible to force a regeneration of these files? They do not have correct data for updated_by since publication of RFC 9975 on 2026-05-26.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7344.json
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7477.json

2 cents: would be nice to have a way to manually trigger regeneration. e.g., a Purple user could click "Sync Changes" on the pages of the updated RFCs (e.g., /docs/rfc7344/publication-preparation), and it would regenerate the JSON file. Why? There are use cases besides publication when the files should be regenerated, e.g., status change, or any other metadata update of a published RFC.

[jennifer-richards]

would be nice to have a way to manually trigger regeneration. e.g., a Purple user could click "Sync Changes" on the pages of the updated RFCs (e.g., /docs/rfc7344/publication-preparation), and it would regenerate the JSON file. Why? There are use cases besides publication when the files should be regenerated, e.g., status change, or any other metadata update of a published RFC.

I expect these will update as needed whenever a field on them changes. I.e., using similar criteria to RFC index updates.

[jennifer-richards]

Fixed by #10951 (plus a couple later tweaks). So far I have refreshed the JSON files mentioned in this ticket. They both show RFC 9975 as updating them, but please check whether the rest of the data agree with expectations.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7344.json
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7477.json

We'll work through refreshing other files. Going forward, any changes pushed from purple to datatracker should automatically refresh the JSON files. This includes refreshing the JSON for existing RFCs when updated/obsoleted by a newly published RFC.