Subject: Proposed change to RFC references

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:01:12 -0700

Hello all,

The RFC Editor supports the goal of a more secure and trusted
Internet. In support of that ideal, the RFC Editor is proposing to
change how we reference RFCs to use an HTTPS URI. This will not impact
existing, published RFCs. All pages will continue to be available over
HTTP as well.

As an example of the proposed change, a reference would change as follow
s:

OLD
   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

NEW

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Please direct any questions or discussion to the rfc-interest mailing
list <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>.

Heather Flanagan, RSE

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:13:54 -0400

I support this change.

    Tony Hansen

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:30:29 -0400

> I support this change.

Yah. Seems like a good idea...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:15:16 +0000

Is this necessary because automatic remapping depends on cooperation from
the browser?

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Tony Hansen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked] Disgust
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed change to RFC references

W

>> change how we reference RFCs to use an HTTPS URI. This will not 
>> impact existing, published RFCs. All pages will continue to be 
>> available over HTTP as well.
>>

--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
   ---maf