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

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Sun Jan 10 12:59:03 PST 2010


I sent the RFC editor rfc97.txt back in 8/2008. It needed to be checked 
by another pair of eyeballs, but I'm not sure why it never got posted.

I've attached it here.

For good measure, I decided to type in rfc551.txt. It's also attached 
and needs to be checked.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

PS. From your list, RFCs 320 and 669 *do* have TXT versions.

Alfred � 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>;
> 
>   -  RFC 636 \  both (.txt) files in the repository are truncated
>   -  RFC 962 /  inadvertently at the end and hence incomplete.
> 
> 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___>
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
>   Alfred H�nes.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: rfc97.txt
Url: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100110/c6d5ec1c/rfc97-0001.txt
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: rfc551.txt
Url: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100110/c6d5ec1c/rfc551-0001.txt


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list