[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued

Phillip Hallam-Baker 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.
>
> Russ


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
frequently cited?

Pulling down the whole index is probably not so useful for drafts of course.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20131010/ecd46983/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list