[rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2

Michelle Kosik kosikmichelle at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 18 14:56:29 PDT 2015


I don't understand, what do you want? 
I was on my computer when that happened and I had no email account on my computer.  kosikfl at mail.com is another email address besides that I don't know what you want. 
Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 18, 2558 BE, at 3:14 PM, rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org wrote:
> Send rfc-interest mailing list submissions to
>    rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    rfc-interest-owner at rfc-editor.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rfc-interest digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Email spam (Michelle Kosik)
>   2. Re: Proposed change to RFC references (Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr))
>   3. Re: Proposed change to RFC references (Viktor Dukhovni)
>   4. Re: Proposed change to RFC references (Brian E Carpenter)
>   5. Re: Proposed change to RFC references (Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr))
>   6. Re: Proposed change to RFC references (Tony Hansen)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:25:33 -0600
> From: Michelle Kosik <kosikmichelle at hotmail.com>
> To: "rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: [rfc-i] Email spam
> Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP43454CC1CC047189746295B5780 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> On the first when I get paid I plan on investing in a private email that's secure. It will take a while for me to have to eventually have my email switched over but I'm doing everything I can to prevent spam. I'm still being taken over by the government and I are trying to set me up out of spite. I'm very sorry about your accounts I did delete your information ASAP.  I don't have administrative control over my computer so if they're trying to blame me for anything it's out of my reach. If I had the money I would get an Apple computer because they would be more secure but I don't and the government won't pay me with it on me I'm really stuck. Sort of held hostage. So I'm really sorry.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:27:51 +0000
> From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr at cisco.com>
> To: "rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
> Message-ID: <DFE79B49-5975-4AFC-A357-21741AC9C10B at cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Viktor Dukhovni" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of ietf-dane at dukhovni.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> I find the RFCs much more usable in their HTML form at
>> 
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<number>
>> 
>> than in the text and PDF forms linked at the rfc-editor site.
>> 
>> Is there any chance that the RFC editor page will make HTML RFCs
>> available? [via https of course]
> 
> No.  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 to tools site in the future.
> 
>> Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't much care what protocol is used to
>> deliver documents via URLs I won't use. :-(
> 
> I'll take that as a vote for: "that wouldn't bother me, please proceed."
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:12:28 +0000
> From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane at dukhovni.org>
> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
> Message-ID: <20150818201228.GN24426 at mournblade.imrryr.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 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]
>> 
>> No.  
> 
> Please pardon my obvious ignorance, any pointers as to why?
> 
> 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.
> 
>> 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:
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt
> 
> so the above are much less usable than:
> 
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN
> 
> -- 
>    Viktor.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:49:21 +1200
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
> Message-ID: <55D39A51.1070401 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
>> 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]
>>> 
>>> No.  
>> 
>> 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
> resource, however.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>> 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:
>> 
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt
>> 
>> so the above are much less usable than:
>> 
>>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:11:33 +0000
> From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr at cisco.com>
> To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane at dukhovni.org>,
>    "rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
> Message-ID: <1C1E9751-5EA5-4366-94FA-69B9C10667C1 at cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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]
>>> 
>>> No.  
>> 
>> 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:
>> 
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt
>> 
>> so the above are much less usable than:
>> 
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN
> 
> Nod.  Those are all reasonable things to want.
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:13:54 -0400
> From: Tony Hansen <tony at att.com>
> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org, ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references
> Message-ID: <55D3A012.1000906 at att.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> I support this change.
> 
>    Tony Hansen
> 
>> On 8/17/15 3:01 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> The RFC Editor supports the goal of a more secure and trusted
>> Internet. In support of that ideal, the RFC Editor is proposing to
>> change how we reference RFCs to use an HTTPS URI. This will not impact
>> existing, published RFCs. All pages will continue to be available over
>> HTTP as well.
>> 
>> As an example of the proposed change, a reference would change as follow
>> s:
>> 
>> OLD
>>   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>>              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
>>              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
>> 
>> NEW
>> 
>>   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>>              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
>>              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
>> 
>> Please direct any questions or discussion to the rfc-interest mailing
>> list <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>.
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 842 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20150818/47223682/attachment.asc>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of rfc-interest Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2
> ********************************************


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list