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 again at some point - either because the IETF gets someone new to manage the tools, or because some new organizational structure of the web site works better with the IETF work flow. I expect the www.rfc-editor.org references to be stable for at least the next 20 years because that's part of the RFC editor's charter (providing a stable archive). I wouldn't care to make a bet on how long the IETF tools page references will remain as they are - it could be decades, it could be minutes. WRT the xml2rfc comment - one of the things that will probably happen this year is the replacement of text or the addition of a new normative format (pdf?) for new RFCs. Later, Mike At 03:01 AM 1/7/2015, Xuelei Fan wrote: >A IETF workgroup uses the following style for its documentation: > >plain text: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt >pdf: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc<num>.txt.pdf >html: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num> > >For Java docs, I think the html version may be better to track the >history and links. > >Xuelei > >On 1/7/2015 3:49 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >> On 1/7/2015 14:26, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> Actually,www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt is probably a better long >>> term normative reference for documents in the RFC series. >> >> Why? >> >> I think Jamil's tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num> is better. The xml2rfc tool >> generates this style. >> >> --Max >> >>> >>> Mike
