[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 16 06:33:14 PDT 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
> On 2008-10-15 19:11 Joe Touch said the following:
>>
>> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> At 7:44 AM -0700 10/15/08, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> The term is one associated with Internet Drafts; it doesn't necessarily
>>>> have the meaning it once intended (e.g., IDs are more RFCs, and RFCs are
>>>> more 'done'). Note that I used it in caps "Work in Progress", which
>>>> intends that it is a term with a special meaning.
>>> Where is that meaning defined?
>> In every I-D:
>>
>> ---
>> Status of this Memo
>>
>> ...
>>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>>    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
>>    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>>    Drafts.
>>
>>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>>
>> ---
> 
> I don't see why that precludes having a citation for a draft which adds
> the note '(Historic work in progress, 2013)', or 'Historic (2013) work in
> progress'.  Not a lie, and a helpful characterization.  No?

"Historic" is a special category for RFCs, but is rarely used for work
that was once available as a draft (or tech report, e.g.), but is no
longer accessible.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkj3QWsACgkQE5f5cImnZrv/pQCfUc1xDkCF3ysiNkbb3kBJtJQx
9U0AoJtfpWGTKoP0cj6OFtid2FyCYYWc
=n9B8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list