[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

[RFC Editor]

Part 5

----- Forwarded message from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> -----

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:45:07 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
To: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Bob Braden wrote:
>>So, just this:
>>
>>    [DASLREQ]  Davis, J., Reddy, S., and J. Slein, "Requirements for DAV
>>               Searching and Locating", February 1999, <http://
>>               www.webdav.org/dasl/requirements/
>>               draft-dasl-requirements-01.html>.
>>
>>would be ok?
>
>How about this?
>
>>    [DASLREQ]  Davis, J., Reddy, S., and J. Slein, "Requirements for DAV
>>               Searching and Locating", February 1999, <http://
>>               www.webdav.org/dasl/requirements/

I really prefer to have the URL to point to the document, that's what it 
is for, last time I checked :-).

Of course I could say "see <http://www.webdav.org/dasl/requirements/> 
for requirements, but in that case, I cite a web page, not a specific 
document.

>>>Then the remaining issue would seem to be the stabiity of the webdav 
>>>archive.
>>>We hate URLs like that, but in the end we sometimes have to be 
>>>permissive.
>>
>>I really like to understand *what* kind of URLs you dislike -- ones 
>>containing the original "draft-" string? That's fixable in this case 
>>(as I have write access to webdav.org).
>
>We dislike too specific URLs, which are much less likely to be stable than
>the generic root URLs.  Readers can be expected to apply some 
>intelligence, given
>the general neighborhood; the URLs don't have to be  one-click.  The URL I
>gave above is still pretty specific; www.webdav.org should be sufficient, I
>would think, but I don't want to argue that point.

See above: yes, pointing to the site can achieve almost the same effect, 
but then we're not citing a specific document anymore.

>>>>>This is another case of a draft that clearly is not work in 
>>>>>progress: the spec that references it
>>>Wasn't it in progress in July 1999?
>>
>>Yes, it was.
>
>So "work in progress" in the citation to a 1999 document is actually 
>logical.

That's how you read it? That may be technically correct, but still is 
confusing to the reader.

>>Well, both are relevant to the reader; "work in progress" is plainly 
>>confusing because it suggests that somebody is working on the 
>>document. In this particular case it would mean that
>>the development of DASL somehow was forked by me (leading to RFC5323), 
>>while others may be working on a potentially competing version...
>>
>
>In the case of independent submissions, when questions of derivation 
>arise, we ask the
>authors to spell it out explicitly in the text, not depend upon some 
>inferences from the
>format of the references.  We don't have control over IETF documents in 
>this regard,
>of course.

But of course you could provide the IESG with that kind of information.

This is all very interesting, but I really want to get out of AUTH48.

So unless there's more than some kind of "uneasiness" having a specific 
URL, I'll have to ask that it is left as it is -- after all, it is 
correct, it's designed to keep stable, and this is what the IESG has 
approved.

That could be:

   [DASLREQ]  Davis, J., Reddy, S., and J. Slein, "Requirements for DAV
              Searching and Locating", February 1999, <http://
              www.webdav.org/dasl/requirements/
              draft-dasl-requirements-01.html>.

              This is an updated version of an earlier Internet Draft,
              which apparently never was submitted to the IETF.

(avoiding naming the draft), and


   [DASL]     Reddy, S., Lowry, D., Reddy, S., Henderson, R., Davis, J.,
              and A. Babich, "DAV Searching & Locating",
              Work in Progress, July 1999.

              This document was not updated since the DASL WG was
              dissolved, a copy is archived at <http://www.webdav.org/
              dasl/protocol/draft-dasl-protocol-00.html>

Feedback appreciated,

Julian







----- End forwarded message -----