[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 11:23:48 PST 2011


Joe,

On 2011-02-09 11:18, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Craig,
> 
> Nice doc. A few suggestions:
> 
> 
> 1)---
>    4.  If a series name is required, it should be "Internet Requests for
>        Comment".
> That should read:
>    4.  If a series name is required, it should be "Internet Requests for
>        Comments".
> (A single RFC is a Request for Comments; the series would be Requests
> for Comments)

You're correct, although I find it a bit ugly with the second "s".
Somehow, 'requests for comment' sounds more elegant :-)

(We had this right in the CCR note.)

> 
> 
> 2)---
> Sec 4 seemed a bit odd to me. In specific, AFAICT:
> 
> a) standards-track docs already can (and do) cite IDs non-normatively
> 
>     this should be noted

I agree that this is the case, but it appears to be forbidden by
RFC 2026. In fact the normative/non-normative distinction was
invented at some point without benefit of a BCP. We intended to
deal with this pragmatically.

> 
> b) it's not clear what kind of citation is now being allowed; this
> should be made more clear
> 
>     IMO, it is NEVER appropriate to cite an ID normatively

Agreed.

> 
> I.e., it's not at all clear to me what is now being allowed that hasn't
> been before, and (if so), why it should change. IMO, IDs can/should be
> cited for credit, but never for specific content detail, regardless of
> track.

Also for historical review, if they are the only source. I have a
number of such citations in draft-hu-flow-label-cases; in fact that
is what sparked my interest in this issue.

What's new, I think, is that we're writing this down, and recommending
that the full date should be included and that the full draft-name
string may be included.

> 
> 3)---
>    7.  While many modern Internet-Drafts are available from an IETF
>        Secretariat tools web site even after expiration, normally the
> This should be updated as:
>    7.  While many modern Internet-Drafts are currently available
>        from an IETF Secretariat tools web site even after expiration,
>        normally the
> I.e, it's not clear that the tools site is a good thing to refer to here
> in specific, except as a current example. (the location where that
> archive exists may change)

But it's explicitly *not* a Secretariat-maintained site. I agree with
inserting 'currently'.

Thanks for the review.

   Brian

> 
> Joe
> 
> On 2/8/2011 1:26 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
>>
>> [for those who'd like another topic of discussion on this list :-)]
>>
>> Hi folks:
>>
>> It has taken a while (and that's probably my fault), but the RFC
>> citations
>> committee has produced a set of recommendations for consideration and
>> discussion.
>>
>> They've just been posted as an Internet-Draft: 
>> draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-rec
>> s-00.txt
>>
>> Most of the document seems (from my perspective) unlikely to provoke
>> controversy.  The one area people may be surprised is we are recommending
>> that people be permitted to cite Internet-Drafts in non-standards RFCs
>> (standards documents cannot cite I-Ds per RFC 2026).
>>
>> The other change most likely to visible is the recommendation to
>> include all
>> of an authors initials on the front page and footers/headers of RFCs.
>>
>> Comments can be sent to the committee<rfc-citations at bbn.com>  or directly
>> to me.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> *************************
>> Chief Scientist, Raytheon BBN Technologies
>> Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan
>>
>> E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com
>> Phone: +1 517 324 3425
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list