Hi MIchael,
That's part of <https://www.w3.org/Protocols/>, which AIUI the W3C sees as a historical view of Web protocols.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised and concerned if we started going after sites that had copies of RFCs posted on them for copyright; at any rate, the IETF Trust is never the sole owner of copyright in specifications AIUI, so proving that we had the right to do so would take more work.
Perhaps the real problem here is that the versions of RFCs that we host don't get very much attention from search engines. While this is no doubt in part because people don't link to them (in my experience, people will always link to a "prettier" version if available), it also may be because we don't help ourselves; e.g., in my search engine of choice:
Cheers,
On 14 Sep 2017, at 12:07 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While googling for the syntax for Content-Type (if there are multiple
paramaters how are they seperated? The answer is ;), I came up with:
https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/4_Content-Type.html
as a top-hit. I guess it's an expansion of rfc1341 by the URL.
But there are no navigation links on the page, and truncating to
/Protocols/rfc1341 didn't give me anything.
And, well, it's a really really old obsoleted RFC.
(with a slightly different ABNF to newer documents. I didn't immediately
notice/understand the *[] part around parameter, although it's obvious in hindsight)
In particular, it doesn't easily lead the reader to find the original RFC1341
in anyway, and perhaps it actually violates the IETF copyright. I don't so
much care (personally...) if the copyright is violated, more I care that the
RFC-editor obsoleted-by information is not clear to the reader and no obvious
way from that page to find the original document.
Can we get w3c to something different here?
I think that we now have anchors links to sections of RFCs, although perhaps
not on the rfc-editor.org copy as yet. (cf: flame war in tools-discuss which I kill-filled)
I eventually found the definition via RFC5822, referencing to RFC4021,
and hence to RFC2045 section 5.1.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
|
