[rfc-i] references vs front matter
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Jan 29 08:47:07 PST 2008
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> For xml2rfc that could give you an unused reference error.
> Just for the record: that is irrelevant to the question of
> what the RFC should look like.
It was only a plauible example how "unnecessary" references
can be found. Not finding them is sub-optimal, last year I
stumbled over an RFC with a reference to MD5. Because MD5
interests me I read it, and MD5 was nowhere used. After
some digging it was clear that the RFC was based on a draft,
-09, and MD5 was removed after draft -05 (or similar). I've
submitted that as an "erratum" (editorial: unused reference).
More information about the rfc-interest