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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Feb 11 08:46:07 PST 2011

On 11.02.2011 17:34, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 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.

It may have gained this ability recently. I know it didn't catch 
incorrect *years* some time ago.

> (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.)


Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list