[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Mar 25 08:41:19 PDT 2014

On 3/25/14 11:29 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-03-25 16:17, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 3/25/14 11:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Yes, it's *possible* to navigate where you want. But it's inconvenient.
>>> Of the things we could link to (info page, plain text, HTML, XML,
>>> PDF...) what do *you* expect to choose most of the time?
>> *My* preferred starting point is the tools.ietf.org/html page. That one
>> gives me the full document, with links to get from the contents to the
>> place that I want, and it also gives links to all the other formats,
>> prior versions, diffs, etc.
>> ...
> Right now that would be my choice too, but I'd be surprised if the RSE
> agrees :-)
> That being said: it would be good that after the switch to the new
> formats there was a place on rfc-editor.org which is as useful, or even
> more useful. If that's not the case, the world will continue to link to
> other sites, and I believe it should be goal to make that less attractive.
> Best regards, Julian

BTW, in the past my most common navigation to drafts and RFCs was either 


or from a wg page. Both of those get you to the

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft... page. From there I would then 
click the "html" link to get to the tools html page.

But of late I have found it generally quicker and easier to simply 
google the name of the rfc or draft and include site:tools.ietf.org. 
This generally gets where I want to be more easily.

Arranging things so that google easily gets you to the right place would 
be a nice goal.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list