Sure. I did a little looking into this as well between email exchanges and I
think Mike has it right. According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html the RFC
Editor site is the authoritative source. Kind of a bummer as I prefer the
xml2rfc format. But if RFC Editor has the best chance at long-term
Changes on Tests look fine.
Regards,
Valerie
On 1/7/2015 3:30 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
I looked through the source changes and they look fine, except that
the following related fix should also be combined for completeness:
7169496: Problem with the SHA-224 support for SunMSCAPI provider
webre
Good point! Thanks for looking insight into the question, Mike.
Jamil, what do you think if we use the plain text links as Mike
suggested if we run into similar update again?
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 1/8/2015 8:10 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
What you want is the most "stable" reference rather than
What you want is the most "stable" reference rather than the prettiest
reference IMHO. That's the rfc-editor.org set of links as the RFC editor is
the owner of the RFC series.
The IETF set of links are subject to change to meet the needs of the IETF and
the tools page links *will* change aga
I looked through the source changes and they look fine, except that the
following related fix should also be combined for completeness:
7169496: Problem with the SHA-224 support for SunMSCAPI provider
webrev for 7169496: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7169496/webrev.00/
As for the test
Please add a noreg-doc label to the bug. Looks fine otherwise.
--Sean
On 01/06/2015 09:59 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
Hello all,
This is a quick fix to deal with a broken link for the RC5ParameterSpec
javadoc.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058912
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net
A IETF workgroup uses the following style for its documentation:
plain text:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc.txt
pdf:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc.txt.pdf
html:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc
For Java docs, I think the html version may be better to track the
history and
