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

[SM]

At 07:22 09-04-2009, Bob Braden wrote:
>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".

The current url to retrieve RFCs is 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<no>.txt  I agree that the format 
should be left to the RFC Editors instead of having one prescribed.

At 08:44 09-04-2009, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/<rfc-no>
>
>Understood, would be more in line with the indicating the more general
>gist without micromanaging.

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm