[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 12:36:40 PST 2019
On 2019-01-18 08:14, John Levine wrote:
> In article <c7044d85-f8cd-6d7d-a0b4-e015913c5ab1 at gmail.com> you write:
>> On 2019-01-17 14:03, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>> One of the worries about this is that going forward we will not have an "htmlized" version of the document as the document will be HTML. This might
>> require a change to XML2RFC to locate this type of information and emit it as part of the output.
>> I can't see why we couldn't prepend an HTML banner to the HTML RFC, to convey the same information. Just a small matter of tools work.
> If you want to see an HTML page which gives you both the RFC and the
> errata and also updates and obsoletes links, start at
But for practical purposes, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN is much more
convenient, which is why many of us use it preferentially. And it is nicely linked
to the tracker.
> Among our other issues, we have accreted far too many semi-official
> archives of RFCs just within the IETF's web sites.
If that's a problem, the fix is (even) closer coordination between rfc-editor.org,
tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org.
However, FWIW I'm happy that tools has a complete mirror of all RFCs.
More information about the rfc-interest