feat: Generate bcp-index.txt

[kesara]

Fixes #10533

Sample: bcp-index.txt (Updated with authors.)

TODO:

• Update header description. But need more eyes on that.
• Make sure RFCs are sorted.

[richsalz]

The format description at the beginning of the sample is not correct. No opinion from me on which is better :)

Since this is plain-text, remove the < and > around the URL's to make it easier to cut and paste them.

[kesara]

@richsalz, Thanks for the feedback. < and > was added because that's how RFC text files show BCPs in the reference. The new bcp-index.txt follows that format.

[richsalz]

Yes, it follows the RFC text format, but it's still less useful. Will there be HTML versions of the index?

[kesara]

Yes, it follows the RFC text format, but it's still less useful. Will there be HTML versions of the index?

No, at the moment only HTML index like view is https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps which redirects to a search result view.
New rfc-editor website will have the similar functionality with a search results view.

HTML index would be a feature request for future updates on new rfc-editor.org website.

[richsalz]

Thanks for the answer. I still think the angle brackets is wrong

[ajeanmahoney]

Hi @richsalz, if you would like to push back on angle brackets, please open an issue at https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-rpc-rfc7322bis/issues, thanks!

[richsalz]

I don't care about the angle brackets in RFC text format. If I want clickable links, I will go to the HTML version. Since there is no HTML version of this index, users have to cut and paste any URLs in the document. Rendering them with angle brackets make that cut and paste a little harder. That is my point.

[rjsparks]

@richsalz part of what we were asked to do with the subseries indices was to match the format that other reference generation, hence Jean's push of your feedback towards the style guide. (And I think it would be good to change that in the style guide).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.43%. Comparing base (5775077) to head (2221445).
⚠️ Report is 32 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10631      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.39%   88.43%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         326      330       +4     
  Lines       43813    44290     +477     
==========================================
+ Hits        38727    39168     +441     
- Misses       5086     5122      +36     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.