[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 26 13:47:17 PST 2010
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 3:47 PM -0500 1/26/10, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> DOIs would be nice, given that every other technical paper of
>> relevance now has one.
> Having a DOI is not the same as a URI that is guaranteed to be
> resolvable in the way that the controlling organization wants.
> At 1:18 PM -0800 1/26/10, Joe Touch wrote:
>> AFAICT, the following pattern ought to be the one with the
>> long-term commitment: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc[0-9]+.txt
> Please, no. That means that the format can never be anything other
> than a text file.
Although I agree, note that this responds with a page with information
ABOUT the document, not with the document itself (and it's not even in
Until non-txt RFCs are canonical, the above is correct. That fact is
actually stated on the page these resolve to, e.g., for 793:
When that policy changes, then it would be useful to provide the URL to
the specific canonical document (.ps, .pdf, .xml, .wahoo, or whatever).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the rfc-interest