MediaWiki talk:Rfcurl

Better URL

At the moment all occurences of "RFC nnnn" in Wikipedia are automagically linked to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcnnnn.txt for numbers nnnn.

The target URL can be set per Mediawiki project (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource, different languages, etc.), example: MediaWiki:Rfcurl

I'd prefer http://tools.ietf.org/html/nnnn as target URL, not only because it's shorter: The simple Rfcmarkup HTML supports links to individual sections and pages while keeping the layout of the official plain text RFC. Rfcmarkup links everything that it identifies as link, allowing easy browsing. And most important it adds links to errata and updates where available.

It took me ages to update e.g. RFCs 1891..1894 by 3461..3464 on Wikipedia, or RFC 2048 by 4288+4289, with Rfcmarkup this would be far less important, because it directly says "obsolete" where that's clear, example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/2048

But Wikipedia might generate quite a lot of hits, can the tools server handle this? I'll copy that question to the talk page when it got a permalink on GMaNe:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tools/159
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tools/160

Already answered on the IETF side, see second permalink, so now it's up to Wikipedia or Wikimedia to adopt this solution. -- Omniplex 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this suggestion -- JFG 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change. Seems to be working ok. --CBDunkerson 02:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I really prefer zvon.org's more extensively HTMLized versions of RFCs [1]. Either way though, I support any RFC presentation that provides at least minimal interlinking, over plain text. --Interiot 05:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shudder, no, that's using frames, and it has ads. For a clean human readable abstract try the RfC editor search engine. Thanks to CDB, somehow I missed this update. Test: RFC 2476 should be obsolete. -- Omniplex 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor tweak

Hi, the IETF tools server admin told me that it would be better to use

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN

instead of only

http://tools.ietf.org/html/NNNN

because the latter goes through a redirection missing a cache.

Also posted on Meta, regards, Frank. 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud