[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Apr 9 07:22:11 PDT 2009

>> It seems that this issue has converged to using
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc<no>

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).

Bob Braden

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list