[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 14:16:17 PST 2011
On 2011-02-11 11:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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.
>>>> What we SHOULD recommend is that the ID name SHOULD be included, and
>>>> the full
>>>> data (as opposed to Year/Month) MAY be included.
>>> 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.
It gets you the exact version. The title may get you a randomly
> 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.
Not so, if you actually want to discuss the details of a versioned draft.
This is not theory. Paul Hoffman has an example, and so do I:
 Winter, T. and P. Thubert, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low
power and Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07 (work in
progress), March 2010.
 Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11 (work in progress), July 2010.
because they are different in a crucial respect (one proposes to
use the flow label and the other one doesn't).
(Mr R. Team is an interesting side effect of xml2rfc.)
More information about the rfc-interest