[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt
braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Apr 9 07:22:11 PDT 2009
>> It seems that this issue has converged to using
And the (present) RFC Editors think this is a bad idea. The "rfc<no>"
part is OK; we could see no strong argument one way or the other on
that. But prescribing the subdirectory name to be "status" is a bad
idea. The word "status" is too overloaded already. The directory will
contain status (e.g., Proposed Standard) but it will also contain
several other classes of meta-data. Other suggestions: "meta" or "info".
It is reasonable for the community to decide on per-RFC vs. generic
URLs, but the specific directory name ought to be left to the RFC Editor
to decide (as always, after listening to community input).
More information about the rfc-interest