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

[Joe Touch]

On 2/11/2011 11:16 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> There is a basic question that I've not seen asked in this discussion:
> what is the reason that someone wants to cite an ID in an RFC?

FWIW, that is the basis of many of my comments.

I would claim that most citations are one or both of:

a) attribution

b) supplemental content

IDs ought to be limited to (a) only, in the same spirit as e-mail 
citations. The citing doc should include a sufficient summary - either 
inline, or in an appendix - to stand alone in the absence of obtaining 
the ID.

You raise a different issue:

1) citing a document instance

2) citing a document group

I.e., citing a single draft, or citing the chain of versions for which 
any version is likely sufficient. I would claim that this doesn't make 
sense, because you can't know that a future version might not omit the 
important info you want to cite (even for attribution).

IMO you can't cite a group to indicate the "most recent" version; that 
is nonsensical as a reference. References should be persistent and specific.

Joe