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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu Feb 10 14:04:26 PST 2011

On 2/10/2011 12:18 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.)

These are ephemeral documents. Their file name is no more useful than 
their title and list of authors in a search engine, IMO.

I think MAY is OK (for the filename), but SHOULD isn't, for that reason. 
It gives a misimpression of publication; again, the point is to cite for 
credit only.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list