4 ms·
> Ah, looks like it was somewhat superseded by RFC 4918, but we’re not going to tell you which parts! How about those extension RFCs? There’s only 7 of them… T
by thayne 9mo ago
> Ah, looks like it was somewhat superseded by RFC 4918, but we’re not going to tell you which parts! How about those extension RFCs? There’s only 7 of them…
This is a major complaint I have with RFCs.
If you want to know the current standard for a protocol or format you often have to look at multiple RFCs. Some of them partially replace parts of a previous RFC, but it isn't entirely clear which parts. And the old RFCs don't link to the new ones.
There are no less than 11 RFCs for HTTP (including versions 2 and 3)
I really wish IETF published living standards that combined all relevant RFCs together in a single source of truth.
- braiamp 9mo agoIs this true anymore? AFAIK, I've seen "Updated by" (rfc2119), "Obsoleted by" (rfc3501), but that might changed afterwards https://stackoverflow.com/a/39714048 https://stackoverflow.com/a/39714048
- marcosdumay 9mo agoThose notices don't usually point to all RFCs that update the one you are reading. They tend to be more complete on the case of obsolete ones.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- mnot 9mo agohttps://httpwg.org/specs/ https://httpwg.org/specs/