[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Oct 10 09:23:09 PDT 2013
On 2013-10-10 18:14, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com
> <mailto:housley at vigilsec.com>> wrote:
> Heather and Mark:
> > Hello Mark,
> > I appreciate the input. To answer your question, yes, there is a
> > 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
> > 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 <http://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.
rfc-index.xml is missing information to create <reference> elements
(dates and author name granularity come to mind).
> Is there a similar index for other non-IETF document series that are
> frequently cited?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest