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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 28 10:34:05 PST 2010

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> So the ASCII versions become the authoritative version, even though they
>>> might not faithfully reproduce the original document?
>> The ASCII version is specified as the authoritative version, regardless
>> of how it was derived (XML2RFC, nroff, Word, etc.). That has not changed.
> I meant the historical case where there was no ASCII version in the
> first place.

The few of those often don't have a definitive authoritative version; we
have a few photocopies in various people's ownership, but there hasn't
been a systematic determination of which version is truly the original.

In some cases, ASCII versions have been rendered and compared to
multiple sources, essentially asserting the ASCII version as definitive
even when it doesn't precisely replicate the sources.


-------------- 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/20100128/3bf8e1cb/attachment.sig>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list