[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 09:40:57 PDT 2013

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:

> Julian:
> >> 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).
> Continuing to publish RFC xx99 will not solve this concern.
> I would support updates too rfc-index.xml to include the information to
> build a complete reference.
> Russ

Would it be possible for IETF and W3C to agree on a standard approach?

Julian is having to screen scrape some of the info for his summaries which
suggests to me that there is a problem with the W3C generator. But
presumably W3C has an incentive to fix this as well.

I have already implemented the XML2RFC references format and not the RDF
format, so this is hardly code-pleading. But it might be easier to persuade
the IEEE to adopt a single format rather than invent its own if IETF and
W3C are doing the right thing.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20131010/af01906c/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list