[rfc-i] Using LaTeX & BibTeX to cite RFCs

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Aug 27 18:42:46 PDT 2009


Martin,

We don't have the 'stream of origin' info for older RFCs, and we don't
even have a status for many of them. I don't think we want to see
'Legacy, Unknown' in the citations, even if you see them in the index.
As far as this info does exist, it could certainly be embedded in the
full BibTeX citation, but I don't think most journal editors would want
it in the final citation.

The publisher, over many years, has been the RFC Editor. For general
citations, if we need to indicate a publisher, I'd go for that,
associated with the ISSN.

   Brian


On 2009-08-28 12:57, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> As for the institution, I think that depends on how the RFC became an 
> RFC. Using an institution of IETF for RFC 31 seems odd as the IETF 
> wasn't around then (IETF 1 was 1986). RFCs from the IRTF should say 
> IRTF. RFCs from the IETF should say IETF. What would be more helpful 
> would be to also have the status (Standard, Draft, Proposed, 
> Experimental, Informational).
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> On 2009/08/28 4:16, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> I see some variations in the published literature in how RFCs
>> are cited.  I've put together a 1 page PDF that illustrates
>> some of the differences.  As PDF attachments can be large,
>> I'm using a URL for access to the PDF:
>>
>>     <http://www.petri-meat.com/rja/example.pdf>
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is a preferred practice in these areas.
>> If there isn't, ought there be a preferred practice ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ran
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> 




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list