[rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of historical RFCs
tony at att.com (Tony Hansen) Sun, 10 January 2010 20:59 UTC
From: "tony at att.com"
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:59:03 -0500
Subject: [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of historical RFCs
In-Reply-To: <201001101944.UAA05675@TR-Sys.de>
References: <201001101944.UAA05675@TR-Sys.de>
Message-ID: <4B4A3F97.5010206@att.com>
I sent the RFC editor rfc97.txt back in 8/2008. It needed to be checked by another pair of eyeballs, but I'm not sure why it never got posted. I've attached it here. For good measure, I decided to type in rfc551.txt. It's also attached and needs to be checked. Tony Hansen tony at att.com PS. From your list, RFCs 320 and 669 *do* have TXT versions. Alfred ? wrote: > (1) > Many thanks to the RFC Editor team for a new big effort in the > RFC Online project, resulting in posting (last week) of 33 TXT > versions of early/historical RFCs that so far only have been > available in PDF (facsimile) form, or -- in one case: RFC 254 -- > not available online at all. > > This means that there are only 11 early RFCs remaining without > a TXT version corresponding to the published PDF facsimile. > (Curious? Here are the #s: 8,9,51,97,320,418,530,551,588,598,669.) > > > (2) > According to my records, the remaining notable deficiencies in the > RFC repository now are only the following: > > - RFC 500 ... still missed, I conclude from to the remark on > <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/rfc-online-2008.html>; > > - RFC 636 \ both (.txt) files in the repository are truncated > - RFC 962 / inadvertently at the end and hence incomplete. > > Has anybody on rfc-interest a complete version of one of these RFCs > available? In particular, I recently have seen a reference to > RFC 962; if that's serious and not only some vague recollection, > the memo should be available somewhere, not only its first page! > Please also note that on the above web page, the RFC Editor called > out for better versions of RFC 8 and RFC 598 (in my list in (1)). > > If these deficiencies cannot be fixed, it would be nice to place a > specific note indicating the particular status issue of these memos > on the corresponding "RFC Info" pages, > <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/info/rfc___> > > In particular, the current version of > <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/info/rfc500> > is a bit confusing, with a broken link to the (missing) .txt file. > > > Kind regards, > Alfred H?nes. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: rfc97.txt Url: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100110/c6d5ec1c/rfc97-0001.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: rfc551.txt Url: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100110/c6d5ec1c/rfc551-0001.txt
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… Alfred Hönes
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… Tony Hansen
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… Alfred Hönes
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… RFC Editor
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… Brian E Carpenter
- [rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of histo… Dave Thaler