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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 27 13:52:04 PST 2010

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  ...
> 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.
> ...

That's true, but that's not really relevant.

Let's assume for a moment that we'll move to HTML as standard format by 
April 1, 2010.

What is your advice for people generating URIs then? For each URI being 
generated, check with the RFC Index about when the RFC was published, 
and generate a different URI format?

What if we decide to serve HTML versions even for earlier RFCs? Maybe 
based on the TXT version (monospaced font etc...), or even based on the 
XML2RFC source? Do we still serve that with a .TXT extension then? What 
about historic RFCs where the canonical version is *not* the TXT 
version, maybe because they were scanned in?

The media type simply does not *belong* into the URI. Period. And if 
it's not part of the URI it does not matter when we switch, and to what 
format. The URI format will always be the same.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list