[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt
housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Apr 9 09:03:05 PDT 2009
I have no objection to "info" instead of "status", resulting in:
At 10:22 AM 4/9/2009, 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".
>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