Re: [Tools-discuss] Unicode decode error for RFCs

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> On 06-Apr-21 09:57, Robert Sparks wrote:
> > Replying to this, even though the thread has mostly moved on, to point
> > at a detail that we need to remember.
> >
> > On 4/3/21 10:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9007  is OK. And the tools repository is going away anyway. Maybe the
> Twitterland needs to be told.
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9007.html is even more OK. I mean, who cares about the
> htmlized versions of HTML RFCs?
> >
> > Other systems (software, SDOs) need to be able to point at the
> > appropriate thing for both old and new RFCs. There's been a strong
> > preference in the past to point to the HTMLized versions for many reasons.
> >
> > For pre-v3 era RFCs, the htmlized versions is what we have - we do not
> > have the xml2rfc v3 html output, and it is not currently on any plan to
> > try to retroactively create any such thing.
> >
> > Asking software and other SDOs to learn to use two different URL
> > patterns (one before and one after the v3 switch) is not likely to be heard.
> 
> Indeed. I believe the RFC Editor would prefer us to use their landing pages like
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9007 or https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1 ,
> but I'm not sure that will catch on.

As someone who has perpetrated numerous egregious xrefs to RFCs using the tools 
url (mostly from BBF docs), I have a few comments.
 - This conversation has been very educational. Thx.
 - I did point to the tools html version because it was historically by far the most readable on-line rendition
 - I now recognize the error of my ways. What I find at "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<nnnn>"
does look like what I should be using. I also see the "Cite" links there are very helpful, and both
point to this rfc-editor.org/info url. That's good and makes it a useful permalink for citations.
 - The fact that I have to click once more (from the info page) to get an actual rendering of the RFC
is ameliorated by the fact I have a choice of renderings. So that's ok. And I really like the new rfc-editor
html rendering with pinned ToC on the right. That's much better than the tools rendering.
 - I'll be using the rfc-editor info link from here on out and will work to change existing docs when the
opportunity arise. I shall be evangelizing this wherever I go.
 - The datatracker bibtex data provides an url of rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9006.txt (note the ".txt" at the end).
This is a much less useful url than the info url. Any chance of getting that changed?

Thx,
Barbara