[rfc-i] Citing drafts

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 22 00:35:08 PST 2021


Am 22.02.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
> On 22. Feb 2021, at 08:35, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the recommendations are inconsistent, and that the first one
>> (from the web site) adds a link to tools.ietf.org.
>
> … which has served us well as a landing page for a draft.
>
> People like that page a lot because it has the relevant metadata and links as well as the content of the draft.

Understood. I'm only surprised that the RFC Style Guide now essentially
*mandates* this - my understanding is that we're trying to replicate all
"essential" services that are currently on tools.ietf.org to an official
place on ietf.org.

> (The equivalent data tracker page has more, but less useful and less usefully presented metadata, and it only has the first two pages of the draft, because it was *not* designed to serve as the landing page.)
>
> We used to use the tools.ietf.org page as a landing page for citing RFCs as well (or the equivalent in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049.html).
> We now have https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949, which is a landing page, but less useful as it doesn’t have the content.
> (And it still has a link to one PDF software vendor :eyeroll:.)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949 uses metadata.js to turn the original HTML into a basic, but useful landing page as well.

FWIW, I totally agree that the "canonical" links for RFCs and IDs should
take people to a page that doesn't require following another link to the
actual content.

Right now my concern however is that the RFC Style Guide seems to
require something that is inconsistent with other recommendations.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list