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

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Mon Feb 1 13:26:02 PST 2010

>> No, we're not, but since you seem to feel so strongly that it's
>> important to return unpredictable data, I'm not going to keep arguing.
> OK, so now we need it to be "predictable"?

Well, yeah.  Call me stodgy.

> What I want is for http:.../rfcnnnn to return the canonical version.

I believe you, but I also see little reason to think that's what everyone 
will want when they look for "the RFC".

I'd rather call what you're asking for the definitive version.  Sometimes 
people want that, sometimes as I said in another message, they'd rather a 
non-definitive alternative that's easier to read.  If someone asked for an 
RFC that's been superseded, they might want the new one, or if not 
supserseded, they might want to see the errata along with the definitive 

I'd rather give people all that, at the cost of an extra click if the 
definitive version is what you want, rather than just shoving a bunch of 
bits that the client might not even be able to display and hiding 
everything else.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list