[rfc-i] For v3: remove <format>?

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 16:11:18 PST 2013

If I am reading the HTML version then I am presumably doing so because I want to read the HTML version and will want the links to other rfcs be in the same format

So I would say that each format variant only needs links to other variations of itself and to other rfcs in its own format.

Plaintext rfcs can be in rot13 for all I care.

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 30, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0800, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> 1. Have a reference that includes links to all versions of an RFC
>> published by the RFC Editor.  Presumably, it would look something like this:
>> [RFC9999]  Doe, J. "TCP Packet Delivery via Drones", RFC 9999,
>>           April 2020. {XML|HTML|PDF|TXT|EPUB}
> I dislike this arrangement because over time the versions might
> change, and this would force you to go back and fix that up.
> You did leave out an option, which is to include the reference with
> only the "canonical" form, and nothing else.  I don't like that idea
> either, but I include it for completeness.
> So, I prefer your (2):
>> 2. Have a reference that includes a link to the Info Page for an RFC,
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list