Re: please review rfc-index.xml

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> From rfc-ed@ISI.EDU  Tue Mar 18 21:15:23 2003
  *> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:10:34 -0500
  *> From: Andrew Newton <anewton@ecotroph.net>
  *> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
  *> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
  *> MIME-Version: 1.0
  *> To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
  *> CC: iesg@ietf.org, iab@ietf.org, ietf-xml@ops.ietf.org
  *> Subject: Re: please review rfc-index.xml
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0
  *> 	tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,
  *> 	      USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,X_ACCEPT_LANG
  *> 	version=2.43
  *> X-Spam-Level: 
  *> X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
  *> 
  *> It would be nice if the XML schema used by the RFC index incorporated 
  *> all of the element types found in the <reference> element of RFC 2629.
  *> 

Is there anything missing besides author address, area, and working
group?  The XML scheme essentially describes the RFC Index, which is an
existing database and does not include any of these items.  There has
been considerable discussion recently about whether RFCs should carry a
working group name, and we believe the preponderance of thought is that
it would not be particularly useful.  The index does not contain, nor
do we expect it will ever contain, a useful set of author addresses.

Furthermore, a reference seems to require a URI.  Pardon our ignorance,
but we don't know how to generate URIs for the past 33 years of
RFC references.

Bob Braden


  *> That way citation libraries, like the one at xml.resource.org, could 
  *> easily generate the XML needed for doing 2629 style draft composition.
  *> 
  *> -andy