IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 22 February 2021 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF5C3A0ECB; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmx.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCdujqPf5ILP; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39ECD3A0EBF; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8EAF4079F; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CD5F4079F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edtrWF4P4Oh5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64DEF4079E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1613982910; bh=/HqIn/gItYRCCXFE09hKzdi1PDkwvtFP+9QYF+MBOJU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Icjyf3fXV05wbfd+x+CskY/F97Yf42/j1NSyx1sd5nbdtZnNRj94BMdZqGbhGLnYk Z+aDqa7GhhmImP3WJGZEkYtg0laF+L9dj1kCNxjpgEfANb+Sj1/CYl7TXvb1JuK+sC xz9eezoEEYBirA7+mToS95PtSEQX99UEc96KRVKY=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.182] ([91.61.48.1]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MbRk3-1lpMJA3hnN-00bt2M; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:35:09 +0100
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <ca04c9b0-a466-2bdb-7a4b-192ec12fc3fd@gmx.de> <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <1000b71b-3198-c92c-a064-b529e9871d56@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:35:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:UeDH7BpxpG1t7gHTZ47zaJSDPBu5zqQm+8I9/CttKkyMwFDTATu tLlfTj68ARKxjZnwMjb167G1s0+/IMOvF9/4im0ZFPQFgDZq0hVXV72rDW/8OHgzQqH9fos e7XeehRAQ1mPXsbR19CRRYxEEvuiof2yTBAW8N+wNlLwla+lhmgmFHbKWwL4mUdGhT8lTc2 fhGvaCeg8AyDe5bbPEgFw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ez3Ce1GmocU=:AAeF+bg1/9NncGMEshbu9l nPmfTdcOJQ7XbYUUj5jLyeS9K0h2ZNJ2CFFCdKb9oXdSTxV1zl8cZAIWNE9typqDffuVMmx97 5p6KMQ9qqoq/cwBScyp+xdC1+4rNwNlEsJDdiqZAyumOLrOulgofT1b/1vNQU2bvUCqvwvnrx iGdD+1R8cZ/UcBd2YqeEG5B08FMvwAzriTUg2iQKgXITXkeaCPrK17MCwhDU26pBhyeh4BZ+G Dd5BunA+07YYJuuz661S+F6HyunLXaZezSQ1/aoxfqKwp7JaMjqwud2lhDVrDg1u+U7IAt0p+ bS3L9qizZBjj8CzkwraPiBXvSaux4+DIItrEJWewJTXMDgDur5J1Gq2ugm1MrghVGp56tz18E gMTesTCODPrDm50JboVZxlQcqDfFh1wT5yvRgGPKuyO90n45Cx01XakEwl8JHF8S81vbP0pkQ 7WnzD298z6k5Y9u0tdkRWkeeCzX3q+X149vBoK2nPjIdPNria4L6lkQJOfBxyD5SB+jzAJxjv jdbZqNkMeGk8L8vbpNF6YM8Fi6VKSOL5STPTbgWJScElOc/NwaLrwOp9PPEf8e6mt45IbZ5LN TqgrYobcwc5ncbqQdmZV+G7uHXiQaIhH05Rjl1Iy127aeOAYiICofmZN4WkBBAYlz/mZKOBMX P4rsmiGSZiPERm29bJ2BZLNbAair4tz6OioihVH57O3nba3up1Kd7Dk6h81f77qdXOToh9Y4v 3KYjobnjzzNGB2+zkx5oK8Ld6MUyvzgdM/vJiGdbgDh/yJvAwMBrDn2AJNdSXQeJ7mPjjYk6I Mq+t/WfN19ifh6Do+0XPdXGNiGMgoptOjoWWe/6P/AX2gurU/dPHIG/823p+NkcoBRxgtau5o LixI+zH272eB7BRI5ymg==
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Am 22.02.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
> On 22. Feb 2021, at 08:35, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the recommendations are inconsistent, and that the first one
>> (from the web site) adds a link to tools.ietf.org.
>
> … which has served us well as a landing page for a draft.
>
> People like that page a lot because it has the relevant metadata and links as well as the content of the draft.

Understood. I'm only surprised that the RFC Style Guide now essentially
*mandates* this - my understanding is that we're trying to replicate all
"essential" services that are currently on tools.ietf.org to an official
place on ietf.org.

> (The equivalent data tracker page has more, but less useful and less usefully presented metadata, and it only has the first two pages of the draft, because it was *not* designed to serve as the landing page.)
>
> We used to use the tools.ietf.org page as a landing page for citing RFCs as well (or the equivalent in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049.html).
> We now have https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949, which is a landing page, but less useful as it doesn’t have the content.
> (And it still has a link to one PDF software vendor :eyeroll:.)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949 uses metadata.js to turn the original HTML into a basic, but useful landing page as well.

FWIW, I totally agree that the "canonical" links for RFCs and IDs should
take people to a page that doesn't require following another link to the
actual content.

Right now my concern however is that the RFC Style Guide seems to
require something that is inconsistent with other recommendations.

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email