Paul E. Jones
paulej at packetizer.com
Sun Apr 8 15:02:58 PDT 2012
> RFC 2556?
Typo. Should be 2557.
> OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP Applicability
> Statement for Historic Status
> It may be that there is a fully defined spec somewhere, but what is the
> status and does practice really agree with the spec? Is there any secret
> sauce that should be documented?
That part I do not know. It's an option if we want a page other than a
plain HTML file.
> If the answer to all the above is that we are OK then lets go with this
Before we go there... can we link to part of an mhtml file from another
document? Being able to have a hyperlink from one web page to a particular
document and section in another is really powerful. Just imagine how it
might ease reading cross-referenced sections in another RFC.
> All we really need from an archive format is a way to package up all the
> files to make submission easy. It could just as easily be a .zip or a .tar
> or even multiple entries in an HTML form.
tar and zip formats are not going to allow us to link to document sections.
> The only function I see as making an archive format essential is to serve
> as a hub onto which tools can be hooked. So if someone is writing a front
> end to the RFC series or the drafts they only need to generate or process
> one format.
If we include images right in the HMTL document itself (as Joe Hildebrand
suggested), is there a need for a different archive format if we go the HTML
More information about the rfc-interest