[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued

Julian Reschke 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
>     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 <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?
> ...

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html>

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list