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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Feb 11 05:13:40 PST 2011

The IETF has long been internally inconsistent abotu the citing of I-Ds.
IETF rules, and the boiler plate we put in each and every I-D says that 
they can not be cited.
We have however, long permitted a particular partial form of citation.

I am sympathetic to the view that this inconsistency does no one much good.
But this list is not the place to change that.  This list is for RFC 
policy.  What we are discussing is a matter of I-D policy.
If we want the IETF to change the policy on citation of I-Ds (and 
recognize the reality of the persistence of I-Ds) then we have to have 
that discussion on the IETF list.
Getting agreement and documenting a policy that recognizes reality seems 
a good result to me.

One could argue that we should reach agreement here first.  But given 
the history of this topic, having the debate here will not save any time 
or effort later.


On 2/11/2011 8:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Overall, it's dangerous to cite something that can disappear (except as
>> credit) - esp. if it's intended to disappear.
> Well, there is an easy and obvious fix for that: include a pointer IN
> THE DOCUMENT istead of its content which says "this became RFC xxxx"
> or "this was a terrible idea and we killed it" or whatever.
> Insisting that work-in-progress docs cannot be cited is just silly
> Ole
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> _______________________________________________
> 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