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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 14:42:25 PST 2011


On 2011-02-11 11:25, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

We certainly argued both your way and the other way in the committee.
In the end I agree with Julian, because I think pragmatism should
beat formalism when things are evenly balanced. In this area, YMMV
certainly applies.

    Brian

> 
> Joe
> 
>>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list