[rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of historical RFCs

RFC Editor rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Tue Feb 9 15:03:27 PST 2010


Thank you for raising these issues.  The following page has been
updated to reflect the recent .txt updates.


Additionally, there are a few comments inline.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Alfred H?nes wrote:
> (1)
> Many thanks to the RFC Editor team for a new big effort in the
> RFC Online project, resulting in posting (last week) of 33 TXT
> versions of early/historical RFCs that so far only have been
> available in PDF (facsimile) form, or -- in one case: RFC 254 --
> not available online at all.
> This means that there are only 11 early RFCs remaining without
> a TXT version corresponding to the published PDF facsimile.
> (Curious?  Here are the #s: 8,9,51,97,320,418,530,551,588,598,669.)
> (2)
> According to my records, the remaining notable deficiencies in the
> RFC repository now are only the following:
>   -  RFC 500 ... still missed, I conclude from to the remark on
>                  <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/rfc-online-2008.html>;

Correct, we do not have a copy of RFC 500.

>   -  RFC 636 \  both (.txt) files in the repository are truncated
>   -  RFC 962 /  inadvertently at the end and hence incomplete.

These files were posted in 1992.  We do not have a better electronic
version of the RFC available.  We will do some research to see if we
can locate an original paper copy to complete the RFCs.

> Has anybody on rfc-interest a complete version of one of these RFCs
> available?  In particular, I recently have seen a reference to
> RFC 962; if that's serious and not only some vague recollection,
> the memo should be available somewhere, not only its first page!
> Please also note that on the above web page, the RFC Editor called
> out for better versions of RFC 8 and RFC 598 (in my list in (1)).
> If these deficiencies cannot be fixed, it would be nice to place a
> specific note indicating the particular status issue of these memos
> on the corresponding "RFC Info" pages,
>     <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/info/rfc___>

We will consider this update in the future, but we do not currently
have the ability to add notes to the metadata pages

> In particular, the current version of
>     <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/info/rfc500>
> is a bit confusing, with a broken link to the (missing) .txt file.

We have included a text file file that states:

   RFC 500, "Integration of data management systems on a computer
   network", April 1973.

   The RFC Editor does not have a copy of RFC 500.  If you have a copy
   of the original, please send it to us at rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org.

Thank you.
RFC Editor

> Kind regards,
>   Alfred H?nes.
> -- 
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list