On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> 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