<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div>--Jamil<div></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Xuelei Fan <Xuelei.Fan@Oracle.COM> <br>Date: 01/07/2015 5:27 PM (GMT-08:00) <br>To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang@oracle.com>, Jamil Nimeh <jamil.j.nimeh@oracle.com> <br>Cc: security-dev@openjdk.java.net <br>Subject: Re: RFR [JDK-9]: JDK-8058912 : Broken link (access denied error)
to http://www.rsasecurity.com in RC5ParameterSpec class summary <br><br>Good point! Thanks for looking insight into the question, Mike.<br><br>Jamil, what do you think if we use the plain text links as Mike <br>suggested if we run into similar update again?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Xuelei<br><br>On 1/8/2015 8:10 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:<br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> Later, Mike<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> At 03:01 AM 1/7/2015, Xuelei Fan wrote:<br>>> A IETF workgroup uses the following style for its documentation:<br>>><br>>> plain text:<br>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt<br>>> pdf:<br>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc<num>.txt.pdf<br>>> html:<br>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num><br>>><br>>> For Java docs, I think the html version may be better to track the<br>>> history and links.<br>>><br>>> Xuelei<br>>><br>>> On 1/7/2015 3:49 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:<br>>>> On 1/7/2015 14:26, Michael StJohns wrote:<br>>>>> Actually,www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc<num>.txt is probably a better long<br>>>>> term normative reference for documents in the RFC series.<br>>>><br>>>> Why?<br>>>><br>>>> I think Jamil's tools.ietf.org/html/rfc<num> is better. The xml2rfc tool<br>>>> generates this style.<br>>>><br>>>> --Max<br>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> Mike<br>><br>><br><br></body>