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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Apr 9 08:44:44 PDT 2009

On 9 apr 2009, at 16:22, Bob Braden wrote:

>>> 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".


Understood, would be more in line with the indicating the more general  
gist without micromanaging.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090409/af320166/PGP.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list