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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Feb 10 12:18:17 PST 2011


On 10.02.2011 21:00, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 2/10/2011 11:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 10.02.2011 20:23, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 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.
>>> ...
>>
>> <broken-record>
>> What we SHOULD recommend is that the ID name SHOULD be included, and
>> the full
>> data (as opposed to Year/Month) MAY be included.
>> </broken-record>
>
> +10.
>
> I think Julian's language is exactly right. I think it is pretty silly
> to do anything to resist use of the name, since it makes it more effort
> to get the document, but difficult in the form of hassle. Designing to
> create hassle is bad design, except for stairway exits at the ground
> level (the hassle is to make it harder to keep going down.)

Thx.

In the meantime I also realized that dates on IDs are unreliably because 
they aren't checked on submission. For disambiguation between IDs, you 
really *need* the ID name.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list