Re: [Tools-discuss] Listing updating RFCs in RFCs

Tim,

One comment:

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 12:48 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> ….
>> Unfortunately we can’t control what the search engines find first.
>> 
>> (The best source of the metadata is https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc-index.xml if you have the stomach for it. Or in human form, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt)
> 
> I think what I’d hope for is an authoritative (single) source that gives the content and metadata about a draft, and then renditions of that into formats where the rendered versions are consistent.  At the moment they aren’t.  We should probably be considering what people new to th IETf and standards documents make of it, as we (or rather you and John!) know the specific details and history that may not be obvious to such people.
> 

To be clear, the RFC-Editor is the authoritative site for RFCs and the Data-tracker is the authoritative site for Internet Drafts.   It’s an important distinction.    I think you are using “draft” to refer to both.

Bob

> Worst case, the Updated by bug needs a fix.
> 
> Tim
> 
>> 
>>   Brian
>> 
>>> Tim
>>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m wondering whether the updating RFCs should just be metadata to the RFCs, or be included fully in all RFCs in all versions.  It’s a little dangerous/confusing when you only see a partial list.  Or maybe I shouldn’t be looking at the HTML but rather the HTMLised version?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tim
>>>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>>>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:Tools-discuss@ietf.org> - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 