[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 08:01:31 PST 2011
Earlier, Julien Reschke wrote:
> What we SHOULD recommend is that the ID name SHOULD be included, and
> the full data (as opposed to Year/Month) MAY be included.
(NOTE: From discussion elsewhere, and the broader context above,
I believe "full data" above is a typo, and that "full date" was
what was actually meant. :-)
I agree that the full ID filename normally SHOULD be included
in the citation of any I-D.
There are historical IDs (e.g. draft-odell-gse-*) that I've cited
in peer-reviewed papers this decade. Frequently, readers of my papers
have asked me where one can find a copy of that ancient/expired I-D.
So even in the research world, many folks like to actually read a copy
of the cited paper/document. We ought to be helpful to readers,
rather than needlessly obstructive.
There appears to be even more interest from the standards/products
world in reading historical documents. Someone else mentioned
patent issues, which is a great example. Other examples include
IDs published by some vendor that never were published as RFCs,
but contain insights useful for enhancing interoperability.
As near as I can tell, many RFCs are only published with a month
and year provided. However, some other RFCs (e.g. humourous
ones published on 1st April) have included day, month, and year.
As near as I can tell, all modern I-Ds include day, month,
So I believe the entire *available* date always MUST be included,
both for I-Ds and RFCs. This recognises that for some RFCs
the "available date" will be day+month+year and for other RFCs
that will be simply month+year.
This is subtly different from what Julian wrote above. I think
the precise difference matters, especially for 1st April RFCs,
even though there are credible reports that RFC-1149 has been deployed
at least once. <http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/>
More information about the rfc-interest