On 01/07/2015 09:02 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
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?
Yes, I think this makes the most sense.
--Sean
--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
>
>