[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 13:54:39 PST 2010
On 2010-01-27 10:18, Joe Touch wrote:
> AFAICT, the following pattern ought to be the one with the long-term
Joe is correct. I can assert this, having checked with the RFC Editor
while working on an article titled "Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs)
as Scholarly Publications", which is due out soon. Quoting:
The proper form for RFCs is:
where #### is replaced with the four digit RFC number
(for numbers below 1000, there is no leading 0).
> We had this discussion before, and the RFC Editor agreed to:
That's not what I was told. The archival form is still .txt.
BCPs are a bit more tricky. If you want a long term stable reference,
you must cite the constituent RFCs. As you can see from
http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp9.txt (for example), the contents
of a BCP are mutable.
More information about the rfc-interest