![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The strike through on the obsolete RFCs make it hard to view what the text actually says. Perhaps if an editor could replace them with another method? eg. Adding a table column. Would be very thankful for it. -- 86.31.106.190 ( talk) 06:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we need to make a date sortible? Right now it sorts by month name and year, first all april's, last all september's. Looks uncool. SoNick RND ( talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To the editors of this page, please take a look into MIME, SMTP, ESMTP, Bounce messages, SMTP AUTH (ESMTPA), CRAM MD5, and RFC if you want to list about twenty more RfCs with corresponding articles. -- Omniplex 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Could consider adding RFC 1294 (obsolete), RFC 1490 (obsolete), and RFC 2427 with related article links to Frame Relay / ATM. fonetikli 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How about
BGP ?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.174.192.217 (
talk)
10:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Can RFC 1950, RFC 1951 and RFC 1952 be in this list? -- 134.58.253.131 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Any special reason why it refers to the obsolute rfc 1889 instead of rfc 3550
Given that there are protocol specific pages referencing RFCs for that protocol ( SMTP, LDAP, MIME, etc), does it make sense to re-format the topical list so that each protocol specific list of RFCs can be standardized and re-used? This may also make it easier to maintain the list of RFCs as editors interested in those specific protocols could then maintain the specific list. I've coded up an example of what I am talking abou at User:Crkey/Sandbox/List of RFCs and User:Crkey/Sandbox/RFCs for LDAP and User:Crkey/Sandbox/RFCs for IRC. Crkey ( talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is from the lede of this article. What does that mean? Articles RELATED to what? I don't see any organizations of the list, and listed subjects are out of date w/r/t "related" RFC numbers. Kbrose ( talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If the tables are sortable, why do we need two separate tables? Have they just not been merged? - dcljr ( talk) 00:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The service behind the external links RFC Search and RFC Authors seems to be unmaintained, and also errors when searching for a known RFC number as recent as 2008. Perhaps these should be removed, as they are probably unhelpful in populating this list-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 00:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
2 Years after, I would suggest to re-read such comment:
Maybe we need to make a date sortible? Right now it sorts by month name and year, first all april's, last all september's. Looks uncool. SoNick RND (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.laurenzi ( talk • contribs)
Can we link each RFC to the text in rfc-editor.org (or a different equally high-quality source)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FC00:82EE:8529:6AC5:A404:1793 ( talk) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The strike through on the obsolete RFCs make it hard to view what the text actually says. Perhaps if an editor could replace them with another method? eg. Adding a table column. Would be very thankful for it. -- 86.31.106.190 ( talk) 06:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we need to make a date sortible? Right now it sorts by month name and year, first all april's, last all september's. Looks uncool. SoNick RND ( talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To the editors of this page, please take a look into MIME, SMTP, ESMTP, Bounce messages, SMTP AUTH (ESMTPA), CRAM MD5, and RFC if you want to list about twenty more RfCs with corresponding articles. -- Omniplex 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Could consider adding RFC 1294 (obsolete), RFC 1490 (obsolete), and RFC 2427 with related article links to Frame Relay / ATM. fonetikli 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How about
BGP ?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.174.192.217 (
talk)
10:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Can RFC 1950, RFC 1951 and RFC 1952 be in this list? -- 134.58.253.131 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Any special reason why it refers to the obsolute rfc 1889 instead of rfc 3550
Given that there are protocol specific pages referencing RFCs for that protocol ( SMTP, LDAP, MIME, etc), does it make sense to re-format the topical list so that each protocol specific list of RFCs can be standardized and re-used? This may also make it easier to maintain the list of RFCs as editors interested in those specific protocols could then maintain the specific list. I've coded up an example of what I am talking abou at User:Crkey/Sandbox/List of RFCs and User:Crkey/Sandbox/RFCs for LDAP and User:Crkey/Sandbox/RFCs for IRC. Crkey ( talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is from the lede of this article. What does that mean? Articles RELATED to what? I don't see any organizations of the list, and listed subjects are out of date w/r/t "related" RFC numbers. Kbrose ( talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If the tables are sortable, why do we need two separate tables? Have they just not been merged? - dcljr ( talk) 00:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The service behind the external links RFC Search and RFC Authors seems to be unmaintained, and also errors when searching for a known RFC number as recent as 2008. Perhaps these should be removed, as they are probably unhelpful in populating this list-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 00:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
2 Years after, I would suggest to re-read such comment:
Maybe we need to make a date sortible? Right now it sorts by month name and year, first all april's, last all september's. Looks uncool. SoNick RND (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.laurenzi ( talk • contribs)
Can we link each RFC to the text in rfc-editor.org (or a different equally high-quality source)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FC00:82EE:8529:6AC5:A404:1793 ( talk) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)