[rfc-i] Allowing RFC numbers in abstracts

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Oct 25 10:11:19 PDT 2005


At 9:43 AM -0700 10/25/05, Joyce Reynolds wrote:
>This is not a new proposed way to do things.  It has been policy for quite a
>long time:
>
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abstract

OK, but it doesn't seem to be a policy that the RFC Editor strictly 
adheres to (fortunately). As I mentioned in my earlier message, the 
abstract of RFC 4178 uses RFC numbers but not titles:

    This document specifies a negotiation mechanism for the Generic
    Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API), which is
    described in RFC 2743.  GSS-API peers can use this negotiation
    mechanism to choose from a common set of security mechanisms.  If
    per-message integrity services are available on the established
    mechanism context, then the negotiation is protected against an
    attacker that forces the selection of a mechanism not desired by the
    peers.

    This mechanism replaces RFC 2478 in order to fix defects in that
    specification and to describe how to inter-operate with
    implementations of that specification that are commonly deployed on
    the Internet.

That is quite readable, and it would be even more readable by the 
*addition* of document titles, not the removal of the RFC numbers.

Nothing in the stated policy prohibits the use of RFC numbers in the 
abstract, nor even discourages them. Instead, it says one shouldn't 
use citations, which seems like a good policy.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list