[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Oct 16 23:44:55 PDT 2008
At 05:21 08/10/17, Keith Moore 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?
I think "work in progress" is descriptive when it's indeed still
work in progress. And I think it *may* be understood in something like:
Author, A, Bthor, B, An Extension to Avian Carriers, Internet-Draft
...., work in progress, 1988.
I.e. I think that the word "work in progress", together with a year
(suficciently) in the past, should make it clear that this WAS, not IS,
work in progress.
On the other side, I think that "work no longer in progress" would
also be very fine, and the same would be true for "expired"
(strictly speaking, after 6 months, Internet-Drafts expire and
therefore cease to be work in progress). The "expired" label
is the one I have used in my extensive CV for drafts that I
still consider noteworthy because they introduced new ideas,
but that didn't make it to an RFC directly.
#-#-# 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