[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Thu Oct 16 14:35:23 PDT 2008


Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> As a concrete suggestion I'd change the boilerplate to say:
>   *> 
>   *> ...inappropriate to cite Internet-Drafts other than as "work in
>   *> progress", or for work no longer in progress, "unpublished working draft".
>   *> 
>   *> And I certainly agree that it should not require this much discussion to
>   *> fix the problem. 
>   *> 
>   *> Keith
>   *> 
>
> Keith,
>
> That seems to violate the time-invariance of RFCs.
>   
Maybe I don't understand.  The above boilerplate only appears in
Internet-Drafts.  And it seems fairly obvious (and implicit) that any
descriptive text appearing in a reference in an RFC can only be
descriptive of the reference as of the date the RFC is written, or at
best, when it was published.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list