Subject: [rfc-i] Interesting bug in the boilerplate...

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:45:33 -0500

"Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC
7841."

Unfortunately, the tools are not adding 7841 to the references as should
happen. So the published RFCs are all missing a reference.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:26:05 +0100

On 11.12.2019 19:45, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> "Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
> RFC 7841."
>
> ...

It's a reference of the boilerplate, not of the actual RFC contents. I
don't see a problem here.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:18:02 -0500

> don't see a problem here.

We might see it as boilerplate but it is part of the specification. It may
be predefined but boilerplate is still content. Someone who attempts to
follow that link needs a reference.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:02:12 +0100

On 12.12.2019 15:18, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:26 PM Julian Reschke <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> We might see it as boilerplate but it is part of the specification. It
> may be predefined but boilerplate is still content. Someone who attempts
> to follow that link needs a reference.

The same would apply to the BCP 78 reference under "Copyright".

In HTML output, these should be hyperlinked; but I still don't see how
they belong in the "References" section of the actual spec.

Best regards, Julian