RFR [JDK-9]: JDK-8058912 : Broken link (access denied error) to http://www.rsasecurity.com in RC5ParameterSpec class summary

[Sean Mullan]

On 01/07/2015 09:02 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
> Sure.  I did a little looking into this as well between email exchanges
> and I think Mike has it right.  According to
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html the RFC Editor site is the authoritative
> source.  Kind of a bummer as I prefer the xml2rfc format.  But if RFC
> Editor has the best chance at long-term stability then it is probably
> the way to go for future things like this.
>
> There are multiple javadoc pages that reference RFCs...would it make
> sense to just file one bug or RFE and hit all the appropriate pages in
> one sweep?

Yes, I think this makes the most sense.

--Sean

>
> --Jamil
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Xuelei Fan <Xuelei.Fan at Oracle.COM>
> Date: 01/07/2015 5:27 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net>, Weijun Wang
> <weijun.wang at oracle.com>, Jamil Nimeh <jamil.j.nimeh at oracle.com>
> Cc: security-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR [JDK-9]: JDK-8058912 : Broken link (access denied
> error) to http://www.rsasecurity.com in RC5ParameterSpec class summary
>
> Good point!  Thanks for looking insight into the question, Mike.
>
> Jamil, what do you think if we use the plain text links as Mike
> suggested if we run into similar update again?
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
> On 1/8/2015 8:10 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>  > What you want is the most "stable" reference rather than the
> prettiest reference IMHO.  That's the rfc-editor.org set of links as the
> RFC editor is the owner of the RFC series.
>  >
>  > The IETF set of links are subject to change to meet the needs of the
> IETF and the tools page links *will* change again at some point - either
> because the IETF gets someone new to manage the tools, or because some
> new organizational structure of the web site works better with the IETF
> work flow.
>  >
>  > I expect the www.rfc-editor.org references to be stable for at least
> the next 20 years because that's part of the RFC editor's charter
> (providing a stable archive).  I wouldn't care to make a bet on how long
> the IETF tools page references will remain as they are - it could be
> decades, it could be minutes.
>  >
>  > WRT the xml2rfc comment - one of the things that will probably happen
> this year is the replacement of text or the addition of a new normative
> format (pdf?) for new RFCs.
>  >
>  > Later, Mike
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > At 03:01 AM 1/7/2015, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>  >> A IETF workgroup uses the following style for its documentation:
>  >>
>  >> plain text:
>  >>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt
>  >> pdf:
>  >>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc<num>.txt.pdf
>  >> html:
>  >>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num>
>  >>
>  >> For Java docs, I think the html version may be better to track the
>  >> history and links.
>  >>
>  >> Xuelei
>  >>
>  >> On 1/7/2015 3:49 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>  >>> On 1/7/2015 14:26, Michael StJohns wrote:
>  >>>> Actually,www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt is probably a better long
>  >>>> term normative reference for documents in the RFC series.
>  >>>
>  >>> Why?
>  >>>
>  >>> I think Jamil's tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num> is better. The xml2rfc
> tool
>  >>> generates this style.
>  >>>
>  >>> --Max
>  >>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Mike
>  >
>  >
>