On 6/28/2013 4:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days). ....
>
> For me, a thanks to Tony Hansen, who did the extraction for me. (That makes me feel a little guilty, why should he do my work I could have done?) But the point of posting on this list was to say that the code should be available so that each person wanting that code doesn't have to do that again.
Hmmm, as one of the authors of RFC6234, I'm not sure how to respond to
that, other than to say, You're welcome. :-) (And no, you didn't get the
files extracted from the RFC, but instead got the files as used to
generate the RFC.)
> I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML from which extraction might have been easier, but also no response yet. And I had found several libraries, but not the RFC code. ...
> But the broader point is that if it's worth the IETF publishing the
> code as an RFC, it's worth making the code available straightforwardly.
I've suggested on a couple occasions to the RFC Editor that, when an RFC
provides source code, they should allow rfcXXXX.tar or rfcXXXX.tgz to be
provided as well.
There's only a handful of RFCs that do provide source code, for whatever
reason, so this should not be an onerous additional feature.
I've CC'd the RFC Interest mailing list, where this would be more
properly discussed.
Tony Hansen