[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Apr 9 09:30:18 PDT 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> On 9 apr 2009, at 16:22, Bob Braden wrote:
>>>> It seems that this issue has converged to using
>> 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.
There's no particular reason the <static-path> and <rfc-no> parts need
to be separated by a directory indicator ("/"), e.g., the following
could work too:
Why not just say that the RFC editor will maintain, at its website, an
RFC-specific URL that provides document metadata, and leave it at that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest