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

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 08:34:11 PST 2011

On 11  Feb 2011, at 11:15 , Julian Reschke wrote:
> So which date are you referring to?
> Date of submission?
> Date of publication?
> Or the date inside the I-D?
> All of these can be different; in particular the latter can be totally off.

Date on the I-D.  

In the citation world at large, there is consistent practice to cite the date 
included in the document itself -- for example a university technical report -- 
EVEN IF that is not the most precise date.  I see no obvious reason we 
should be gratuitously different from other citation practices.

In my experience, the automated submission tools do reject I-Ds that have
grossly erroneous dates, but will accept I-Ds that contain a date within
a few days of the date the posting transaction occurs.  

(For example, please consider that since the day varies at different parts 
of the globe, a submission from Guam dated X might be entirely accurate, 
yet also might appear to be premature to a server located in Europe
or North America.) 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list