[rfc-i] request to deprecate numeric citations in xml2rfc
Paul Hoffman / VPNC
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 12 06:40:57 PST 2005
At 10:11 PM -0800 1/11/05, Joe Touch wrote:
>It would be useful, IMO, in both places to have some suggested
>formats for such references. The IEEE version is:
> To85 (Touch 1985)
> ToEg92 (Touch Eggert 1992)
>I.e., use the first two letters of the first author's last name,
>adding up to one additional author, and the last two digits of
>publication year. Collisions are resolved by lower-case alphabet:
>(all have a suffix if any do).
I have always found those references almost impossible to read and
difficult to use when a paper references many things by the same
>There are other versions that work:
>etc. It doesn't matter which one, but it'd be useful to at least
>suggest something (even if it isn't desirable to enforce).
Those are better, but still not as good as strings that simply
describe what the reference is for, such as:
Please do *not* standardize on an author-based naming system.
>Also, IMO it'd be useful to cite RFCs uniformly as:
>(always using 4 digits? or using 3?)
My preference has been to RFCNNNN, and I don't think we need to
left-pad-with-zeros two- and three-digit RFC numbers.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest