Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 08:15 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 DFC9F3A0E1F; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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
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 MsaiKu_1rlxz; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:18 -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 7E2CA3A0E26; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BA1F407CA; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:11 -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 C04E4F407CA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 xHVmQysqUEa8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63107F407C9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.152] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DkZjq2dG9zysG; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:15:11 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <ca04c9b0-a466-2bdb-7a4b-192ec12fc3fd@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:15:10 +0100
Message-Id: <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org>
References: <ca04c9b0-a466-2bdb-7a4b-192ec12fc3fd@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
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-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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.

(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.

Grüße, Carsten

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