On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:17:11PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Top posting to note that if you find the RFC via its DOI you > also get the correct status first. I think the RFC Editor has > done the best they can, consistent with the policy that the > bits in the canonical form of an RFC never change. That touches on John Klensin's question about where people would reasonably expect to find things (RFCs and metadata about them). For me as an AD, I am either looking at the tools.ietf.org HTML version or the datatracker page, or I am lamenting Google's algorithm that placed me somewhere else. But I don't know what "people in general" are "reasonably expecting" to do; perhaps the RFC Editor's plain-text repository remains canonical in usage as well as in archival status, even if it is not for me. (It's also unclear how useful http/rsync/etc access logs would be for trying to answer this question.) -Ben
