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

Joe Touch 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:

  Canonical URL:

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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100126/a6276408/attachment.sig>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list