[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 1 09:58:53 PST 2010


Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
> "HTTP" is just as likely to be invalid; why is it OK to pin down the
> protocol, and not the file type?
> ...

Because otherwise you can't specify a URI in the first place.

That being said: I don't think HTTP *URIs* are going to go away anytime 
soon. They may be *dereferenced* differently at some point of time, but 
that's it.

> Note that W3C's concern is what happens when the file *changes*. For
> authoritative RFCs, this should not happen anyway.

Again; the question was about a template for the canonical URI for *any* 
RFC number, which includes RFCs written and published in the future.

We should be able to answer that.

BR, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list