[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 27 13:03:22 PST 2010
At 9:41 AM +1300 1/28/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 2010-01-28 09:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 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.
>Conclusion: we need both. Since we have both, is there a problem?
Not that I see. (Well, we don't have canonical URIs for BCPs and STDs and FYIs yet, but the interim RSE or the transitional RSE or the RSE can fix that.)
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest