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 stability then it is probably the way to go for future things like this.
There are multiple javadoc pages that reference RFCs...would it make sense to just file one bug or RFE and hit all the appropriate pages in one sweep? --Jamil -------- Original message -------- From: Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> Date: 01/07/2015 5:27 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Michael StJohns <mstjo...@comcast.net>, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com>, Jamil Nimeh <jamil.j.ni...@oracle.com> Cc: security-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR [JDK-9]: JDK-8058912 : Broken link (access denied error) to http://www.rsasecurity.com in RC5ParameterSpec class summary 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 > >
