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

[Joe Touch]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-01-27 10:18, 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
> 
> 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:
>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc####.txt
>  where #### is replaced with the four digit RFC number
>  (for numbers below 1000, there is no leading 0).
> 
> Paul said:
> 
>> We had this discussion before, and the RFC Editor agreed to:
>>         http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc[0-9]+
> 
> 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.

FWIW, STDs and BCPs (maybe FYIs in the future)) can also resolve to
multiple documents, and that's not easily handled by either URLs or
DOIs.=, e.g., STD-3 currently points to 1122 *and* 1123; see also BCP-9.

Joe

-------------- 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/a4022a84/attachment.sig>