[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
craig at aland.bbn.com
Thu Feb 10 14:13:37 PST 2011
The point is that they're not ephemeral -- older drafts linger around.
And people (e.g. for patent precedence) want to be able to cite a particular
draft of a particular date.
> 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.
Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies
E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com
Phone: +1 517 324 3425
More information about the rfc-interest