[rfc-i] Recently published .txt versions of historical RFCs
rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org (RFC Editor) Tue, 09 February 2010 23:03 UTC
From: "rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org"
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:03:27 -0800
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: <20100209230327.GB17182@rfc-editor.org>
Alfred, Thank you for raising these issues. The following page has been updated to reflect the recent .txt updates. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online-2008.html Additionally, there are a few comments inline. On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Alfred H?nes 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>; Correct, we do not have a copy of RFC 500. > - RFC 636 \ both (.txt) files in the repository are truncated > - RFC 962 / inadvertently at the end and hence incomplete. These files were posted in 1992. We do not have a better electronic version of the RFC available. We will do some research to see if we can locate an original paper copy to complete the RFCs. > 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___> We will consider this update in the future, but we do not currently have the ability to add notes to the metadata 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. We have included a text file file that states: RFC 500, "Integration of data management systems on a computer network", April 1973. The RFC Editor does not have a copy of RFC 500. If you have a copy of the original, please send it to us at rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Thank you. RFC Editor > Kind regards, > Alfred H?nes. > > -- > > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | > | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | > | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah at TR-Sys.de | > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
- [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