[rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Aug 18 13:49:21 PDT 2015
On 19/08/2015 08:12, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:27:51PM +0000, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> Is there any chance that the RFC editor page will make HTML RFCs
>>> available? [via https of course]
> Please pardon my obvious ignorance, any pointers as to why?
Firstly, please note that the RFC Editor landing page for an RFC, like
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026, (which is the preferred first
point of call) has information that isn't in the RFC text itself,
and is authoritative about status, updates, etc. But the .txt
file is the canonical format (today).
> The tools.ietf.org HTML rfcs are still just the .txt documents
> (pagination, line breaks, ...), but with usable HTML links.
Right, but they are created from the canonical form by an algorithm and,
although very useful, they are therefore not authoritative: occasionally the
algorithm makes mistakes.
I don't actually see why the RFC Editor couldn't point to them as an FYI
> I wasc hoping to see something similar.
>> However, there is a chance that the version you get from the RFC
>> Editor site may one day be more easy to use, and that we might not always
>> need the tools site in the future.
> Specifically, I'd like to have usable links in the table of contents,
> usable links in the references, and, to the extent possible, working
> links to "Section N of [RFCNNNN]" which link to the section in
> question. And of course the ability to share links to a specific
> section or page of an RFC with others.
> None of the above seem at present to be features of:
> so the above are much less usable than:
More information about the rfc-interest