On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I support this change. Yah. Seems like a good idea... W > > Tony Hansen > > On 8/17/15 3:01 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: >> >> 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>. > -- 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