[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Martin Duerst duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Oct 16 23:40:17 PDT 2008


At 06:00 08/10/17, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> 
>  *> 
>  *> Does anyone else have the impression that we're too attached to the
>  *> three words "work in progress" to describe Internet Drafts, and that it
>  *> should be acceptable to use other, appropriately descriptive, language
>  *> when citing a draft for non-normative purposes?
>  *> 
>  *> Keith
>  *> 
>
>Keith,
>
>Frankly, it does not seem to be an issue that warrants all this much
>discussion.  In any case, I would observe that we have been using the
>phrase "work in progress", whatever its merits, for some 20 years, and
>if we decide to change it, we had better make sure we will still be
>happy with it 20 years from now.

I think that phrase is fine as long as the work is indeed in progress.
But for stuff that's clearly no longer in progress, we are already
not happy, so discussing whether we will be happy about it in 20
years isn't very helpful.

Regards,    Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp     



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list