[rfc-i] [art] New RFCs text formatting

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Sun Dec 1 05:51:57 PST 2019


Hi Brian,

On 2019-12-01 01:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01-Dec-19 12:55, Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
>> I think it would also be "interesting" if the preferred source for RFCs 
>> became a site other than rfc-editor.org.    (Which, for all I know, 
>> might already be the case.)
> (Switching lists, intentionally)
> 
> I pretty much always use https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX and so do many other people. However, right now there's a consistency problem:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc/rfc3056
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3056.html
> 
> are roughly the same, but
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8651
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8651.html
> 
> are very different.

Yes, right.

> Is there a plan to fix that inconsistency?

I didn't have any explicit plans, but fixing that should be fairly
straightforward.  The biggest question is really what the majority
of users will be expecting.  The Principle of Least Astonishment
would seem to be applicable.


Best regards,

	Henrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20191201/de26ebd5/attachment-0001.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list