IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 29 June 2020 18:02 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 6C7353A08DC; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 4SfxUNnTU3Mt; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 0E34C3A08CA; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA608F4074E; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
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 4BC02F40744; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 KR6QGIRSOwvb; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3B5F40742; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.82.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05TI2KYk003787 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1593453752; x=1593540152; i=@elandsys.com; bh=iDEbamXw3+dFiL2pI3+GavbL/+HuLUAzteRdqOZr5Z4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=Yk4V0BC6KVVRrwzfxheqXx1+/qDvVkmyxx+aJaikPKh7AeS9vCFf+0D0xeL5BhFl0 bc0dCKssJqzrOwqZL5z59ChRkm8h/dE9ZN9HuA3hWpFltTMYZHJeyTo5yzEdUnDNsU 5yDw5XoG2/glWa5aZzMpUN96moNiS7i9mBMxjJVw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200629105013.10434f88@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:00:10 -0700
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rfc-i] Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue
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: rse@rfc-editor.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hello,

I was reading RFC 7322 and I came across this:

   * Connected to www.rfc-editor.org (2001:1900:3001:11::31) port 80 (#0)
   > HEAD /cluster_def.html HTTP/1.1
   > Host: www.rfc-editor.org
   > User-Agent: [removed]
   > Accept: */*
   >
   * Mark bundle as not supporting multiuse
   < HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
   HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found

Section 4.8.6.1 of the RFC states that: "The use of URIs in 
references is acceptable, as long as the URI is the most stable 
(i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously available) 
and direct reference possible."  Is that accurate?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

_______________________________________________
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