Improve code format and updates bib file

[audeoudh]

Ports to Python 3, drops jinja requirement, uses techreport bib entry, and others minor things. Finally, updates rfc.bib file

Commits are done separately to clearly see what have changed and why.

[hupili]

@audeoudh Thanks very much! Just get back to this thread. I am Ok with most of the updates. To not block other users, let me merge it first. I just have one question for further discuss:

• Is there any further elaboration on preferring "techreport" over "misc"? i.e. some use cases from downstream would help.

[audeoudh]

For my personal point of view, there is three reasons.

• An RFC is technical, definitive and stable document. Not literally a report: there is some standard one, some informationnal, some experimental… However, I found techreport preferable over both manual (too technical in my sense) and misc (too broad, too imprecise), and no other categories seems acceptable.
• According to Wikipedia (I did not check the sources however), there is more fields allowed for techreport to describe all information about an RFC. Even if we can effectively use the note field of the misc entry, it is not obvious what should be put there, and with which format.
• The techreport renders better, mainly because it knows more precisely the different fields of the 2nd point.

There is no absolute and definitive arguments saying that we should prefer techreport over misc. This above is only my point of view of what should be done. Note that I also dropped the URL, that I found ugly and not necessary. This is also debatable, and I even see that you pushed a special commit to add it — so I expect we do not have the same point of view…

Please, feel free to revert any change if you conclude that we shouldn't do as I think. Thank you for asking for the explanations I should have provided while submitting the PR. :no_mouth:

[hupili]

@audeoudh Thanks very much! Highly appreciated indeed!

For techreport over misc, I think your way of being "more expressive" is better. Let's keep it that way until we hear use cases from other users. (although we don't know who is using this repo :) ).

Note that I also dropped the URL, that I found ugly and not necessary. This is also debatable, and I even see that you pushed a special commit to add it

Since it is developed years ago, I'm not 100% sure about the original rationale. I guess the reason was that I want to render an URL there, so people reading my paper can directly click and enter the RFC full text. Since I am not active LaTeX/ BibTeX user for some time, I can not evaluate whether this use case is demanded or not. Let's redirect the discussion to #4 . Hopefully, other users can share some thoughts with us.

Sincerely thanks again!