[rfc-i] xml.resource.org

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 22 14:32:50 PDT 2014

On 2014-05-22 22:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-05-22 22:26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> I can't find that, but in the meantime, please see my post about use
>>>> of URNs for this.  ISTM that the right way to handle this is via URNs,
>>>> with xml2rfc resolving in some fashion (in code), perhaps using a list
>>>> of bibxml repositories' base URLs could be provided as local
>>>> configuration.
>>> We cannot change these documents to use URNs until there is an operational
>>> URN conversion service. Many of us have been asking for one for years.
>>> ...
>> I really don't get it. (yet?)
>> The URNs for RFCs what we have identify the RFC, not a reference to that
>> RFC, in particular not one in a specific format.
>> It would be helpful if someone who thinks that this is a good idea could
>> state a) what URNs to use, and b) to what they should be resolved.
> I take it you're responding to me, not to Paul's comment about URN
> conversion services.
> First, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2014-May/006971.html
> But I'll repeat myself: IETF URNs for RFCs (and I-Ds, and ...) refer
> to RFCs (and I-Ds, and ...), yes, of course, but there's no reason
> that they can't also refer to their corresponding bibxml entries when
> used in a context that needs bibxml.

In which case you're not using a URN, but just a string and overload the 
meaning. It's not much different from the xml2rfc seriesInfo element.

> Nor is there any reason that we couldn't extend the existing URN
> schemes to support "fragments" to identify specific aspects of RFCs
> (and I-Ds, and ...).  "Aspects" like: specific output formats, bibxml
> references, I-D tracker URL, ...
> ...

Yes, we could do all of that, but now it seems that you're re-inventing 
the Web :-)

If we want reliable resolution of RFC metadata, then we should instead 
just make sure that this is an IETF service and that it gets the proper 

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list