What is the difference between datatracker.ietf.org & www.rfc-editor.org and which is Official URL for RFC ?

[Jxck]

Some RFC has multiple URL.

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9110
• https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html

IIUC, tools.ietf.org is deprecated and redirect to datatracker.
datatracker has some metadata for RFC and rfc-editor looks focusing on reading content itself.
But I don't know what is the purpose to have multiple site and how they utilize.

Q: if I put link into some official document (like Paper, Article, Manual, Book etc).
Which is the best URL to link RFC ?

[Jxck]

It'd be helpful to have official guidance from IETF for here.
If I missed it, please let me know.

[kesara]

I hope these resources might help you:

• https://authors.ietf.org/en/references-in-rfcxml
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/

[cabo]

If you look at rfcs citing other rfcs, these all use rfc-editor.org. It couldn’t be more official. Sent from mobile, sorry for terseOn 26. Mar 2024, at 14:09, Jxck ***@***.***> wrote: It'd be helpful to have official guidance from IETF for here. If I missed it, please let me know. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rjsparks]

You should point to rfc-editor.org

However, be aware that the current style guide says to point to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110

There is ongoing discussion about making the page referenced contain both content and metadata.

[Jxck]

You should point to rfc-editor.org

Got it. Thanks.

However, be aware that the current style guide says to point to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110

Hmm, it seems hard choice for me...🤔