[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Nov 1 03:34:37 PDT 2008
RFC Editor wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> We suggest that you include your annotations in the acknowledgments
> section (instead of their presence in the references section, without
> specifying draft strings). This is much more in line with
> previously published RFCs that want to acknowlege previous works.
That could work for one of them, but doesn't seem to be the right thing
for a reference to a Requirements document.
However, I'm concerned with making changes like this in AUTH48 (past
last call and IESG approval), so, I'd really prefer to publish a new
draft, get it approved by the community and move on then.
> We are happy to document a new policy regarding expired
> internet-drafts if one arises from this discussion. But, unless the
> IAB declares consensus that some other process has been adopted, we
> will continue to follow current procedures. Again, this decision is
> not one that the RFC Editor can make unilaterally, as it a policy
> change that impacts all future RFCs. Please note that we are not
> "against" making a change to the policy, but we want to make sure it
> is a change that we can live with for years to come.
Understood. I really hope that a change *does* happen, though.
> A few comments regarding including URLs to specific documents hosted
> at www.webdav.org...
> - We typically cut links to specific I-Ds from any document; this is
> common practice for the RFC Editor. This is why it was originally
> deleted from the references section. We can leave the more
> general link to www.webdav.org if that is your preference.
Linking to a site is not the same thing as linking to a document. Not
linking to the actual document is a disservice to the reader.
You say "We typically cut links to specific I-Ds from any document; this
is common practice for the RFC Editor." -- so, in addition to what you
do "typically", is there some *rule* that requires this? Where?
Earlier on you said that there were concerns about URL stability.
However, I think you should trust the authors and the community of
people who reviewed and approved the document on this.
One of the URLs I use has been stable since 2004, the other one since
2000. It is unlikely that these URL could become unstable as long as
ownership of www.webdav.org changes; in which case pointing to the site
won't help as well.
An alternative is to use one level of indirection, such as
<http://purl.org/NET/webdav/dasl-references/reqs>. Please let me know
whether that would be acceptable.
> - Possibly, if URLs of Internet-Drafts were included in RFCs, then
> there should be consensus on what is the "official" archive of I-Ds.
> We imagine it could be tools.ietf.org. However, while it appears that
> the Tools team permanently archives all I-Ds, (as far as I can
> remember) there has never been a formal decision/announcement that
> I-Ds were going to be permanently archived.
Of course tools.ietf.org would come to mind first. I would support that.
Note that this helps only with one of my two references, as one is to a
document that was *not* published as Internet Draft.
[DASLREQ] Davis, J., Reddy, S., and J. Slein, "Requirements for DAV
Searching and Locating", February 1999, <http://
This is an updated version of the Internet Draft
"draft-ietf-dasl-requirements-00", but obviously never was
submitted to the IETF.
Speaking of which, why do you apply your I-D citing rule to this
document when the version being referenced actually was never published
as Internet Draft?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest