[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 12:18:41 PST 2010
On 2010-01-28 05:35, Joe Touch wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>> ... The /info pages are neither canonical nor normative as well. There
>>> is no
>>> requirement for what it contains, or how that info is presented.
>> "Information about the current status of this document, any
>> errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>> (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3.2.3>)
> If I were citing an RFC's status, errata, and how to provide feedback,
> then that is indeed what I would cite. But *none* of that information is
> either canonical or normative. None if it is required to cite the *RFC*
Exactly. Formal citations of RFCs issued in ASCII will always remain
as citations of the ASCII version, for ever. If we ever do change to
.fubar as the new canonical format, that will not change anything for
the .txt RFCs back to RFC 1.
Of course, the http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<rfc-no> form of
reference is highly useful, but *not* for formal archival citations.
More information about the rfc-interest