should the BibXML URLs contain "/rfc/" for non-RFC entries?

[ajeanmahoney]

Describe the issue

Currently bibxml URLs contain "/rfc/" for entries that are not RFCs. For instance:
https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.irtf-cfrg-bls-signature.xml
https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml4/reference.W3C.xml-events.xml

Is having "/rfc/" in the path necessary?

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[kesara]

This pattern matches the old tools.ietf.org URL structure.

Is having "/rfc/" in the path necessary?

I'd say no.
BibXML can introduce a better naming structure, and implement redirection logic for the /public/rfc/bibxml* structure.

[TonyLHansen]

Well, they're used for generating RFCs and internet drafts that lead to RFCs, so the name was considered appropriate.

Also, a newer naming structure than "bibxml3" and "bibxml4" has been used for years (e.g. bibxml-drafts, bibxml-misc, bibxml-w3c, bibxml-ieee, etc), with bibxml2, 3, 4, 5, etc all symlinked into the other name. And yet, people still insist on using bibxml**#** instead of the symbolic names.

If a better naming structure is going to be created,

• Do use the symbolic names instead of numbers.
• Do provide links from the older naming structure.