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

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> 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.

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:

	http://www.rfc-editor.org/info?rfc=2468

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?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkneIpoACgkQE5f5cImnZrte8wCgiNfKqyCTjEHMamX+AJT3BoeD
jgIAn1i+KdqNmmCAb9S2XHBbf0ajLEBi
=lE8Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----