[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 27 12:33:39 PST 2010
At 9:18 AM +1300 1/28/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>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.
This thread started as a request for the canonical URI for RFCs and BCPs, not for archival citations. Some people want the canonical URI to be the same as the archival citation; others want it to be more useful than that.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest