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

[Olaf Kolkman]

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".



http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/<rfc-no>

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

--Olaf
-------------- 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