Re: [rfc-i] RFCs now updated in ACM Digital Library

That’s a good point about errata, they currently do not have errata (nor do they point to them) - I’ll see if I can get them to incorporate those somehow.

Thanks,
Alexis

> On Jan 5, 2023, at 1:18 AM, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/01/2023 01:15, Alexis Rossi wrote:
>> 
>> One of the best long term preservation strategies is to have multiple copies of documents stored with different organizations. To that end, I’ve been looking for additional homes for RFCs. Also, for access I think it’s great to have the RFCs in places where people are doing other types of research already.
>> 
>> The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library had some RFCs, but they had not been updated since 2004. Fortunately, they were quite interested in bringing that collection up to date, so they are now current and will be updating their collection periodically through the year.
>> 
>> Better preservation, more access! Yay!
> 
> dl.acm.org I see as one of the more irritating of websites giving me a popup that I have to acknowledge on (almost) every access.
> 
> However, I wonder what the policy is on errata; I see no mention thereof.
> 
> I wonder too about formatting.  Older RFC appear in the format I expect, what I think of as ASCII, how my printed copies appear.  More recent RFC offer me a choice of pdf or ereader.  I wonder what these are derived from as they include page numbers (something which the datatracker displays have long since abolished).
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Alexis
>> 
>> [1] https://dl.acm.org/browse/rfc?startPage=0&sortBy=EpubDate_desc
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> 
> 