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 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
