[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued
hallam at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 09:14:05 PDT 2013
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> Heather and Mark:
> > Hello Mark,
> > I appreciate the input. To answer your question, yes, there is a cost
> > in creating xx99 documents - it requires RFC Production Center staff
> > time and effort to pull these together, on the order of several hours at
> > a random periodicity dependent on submission and publication rates.
> > The "external search" of the publication database by the RFC search
> > function is not something I would consider external - it is code written
> > in-house, run against an in-house database. I believe it does
> > sufficiently meet the need of providing information on the Series for
> > members of the community.
> > -Heather Flanagan, RSE
> I also find that the RFC Index, which is updated each time that an RFC is
> published to be very helpful.
D'oh! Being doing something wrong...
So instead of writing my references generator for RFCs so it pulls the
references out of the xml.resource.org files and caches them, I should
allow folk to download the XML index and cache that. It would eliminate
most of the calls to resolve references.
Is there a similar index for other non-IETF document series that are
Pulling down the whole index is probably not so useful for drafts of course.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest