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

[Bob Braden]

>
>
>>
>> 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