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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu Feb 10 14:25:29 PST 2011

On 2/10/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> The point is that they're not ephemeral -- older drafts linger around.

Linger yes; are archival for the purposes of reference, no. Again, there 
are plenty of IDs that were never on the web, and are just gone.

> And people (e.g. for patent precedence) want to be able to cite a particular
> draft of a particular date.

Sure - I'd consider that an exception requiring the filename, the same 
way that personal email often cites the message ID when used in a patent 
precedence case.


> Craig
>> 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.
>> Joe
> ********************
> Craig Partridge
> 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 mailing list