[rfc-i] Using LaTeX & BibTeX to cite RFCs
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Aug 27 19:48:43 PDT 2009
On 2009/08/28 10:42, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
Definitely not. Just no status would be okay.
> 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.
For the publisher, yes. But status may be more important than publisher.
> 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:
>>> I'm wondering if there is a preferred practice in these areas.
>>> If there isn't, ought there be a preferred practice ?
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the rfc-interest