[rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Aug 18 14:11:33 PDT 2015
On 8/18/15, 2:12 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Viktor Dukhovni" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of ietf-dane at dukhovni.org> 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?
Sorry, I thought you were asking for the URLs to point to the http(s)://tools.ietf.org/. I misunderstood.
Since the RFC Editor doesn't have control over that site, it wouldn't make sense to point to it. Since you were asking for something much more reasonable, the answer is probably "yes-perhaps", over time. :)
>The tools.ietf.org HTML rfcs are still just the .txt documents
>(pagination, line breaks, ...), but with usable HTML links. I was
>hoping to see something similar.
There are tooling things that would have to be worked out for older RFCs (seeing when and how the code from tools.ietf.org or similar might be deployed by the RSE), but new-format RFC's will definitely have nice HTML published.
>> 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:
Nod. Those are all reasonable things to want.
More information about the rfc-interest