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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Fri Aug 28 08:37:26 PDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

The "publisher" is the ISOC, at least for the later RFCs. Even for older
RFCs that predate ISOC involvement, the ISOC is the basis for making
them available (even the Independent stream) and is thus the publisher
at least in a sort.

I would never say the publisher was the RFC Editor - that's the editor,
not the publisher.


RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier, hgs wrote:
> % (I personally use IETF, as that's most likely to be recognized,
> % and, if googled, likely to point towards a generally useful  
> direction.)
> While this might be fine for RFCs that really are IETF products,
> the IETF community has been trying for many years now to make
> clear that "Not all RFCs were the product of the IETF" and also
> "Not all RFCs are IETF standards-track documents."
> So my preference would be to avoid listing "IETF" as publisher
> at least for non-IETF-origin RFCs, in the interest of avoiding
> accidentally creating or perpetuating confusion about RFCs.
> For some legacy RFCs, it can be difficult to discern whether
> they were IETF products or not.  For recent RFCs, it might be
> clear which are "IETF", "IRTF", "IAB", or "Individual Submission".
> Cheers,
> Ran Atkinson
> rja at extremenetworks.com
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list