[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Fri Feb 11 11:56:59 PST 2011
On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> You're correct, but our topic here is really: given that
> someone decides to cite an I-D, what should the citation
> look like?
> I just looked at RFC 1380... an interesting example.
> Some of the references are very interesting historically.
> How can I find them?
> On 2011-02-12 08:16, 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?
Wearing my RSE hat, I'd like to see more consideration of Scott's
question. My gut feeling is that the RSE will need to consider this
issue in the future, in the form: "When it is appropriate to allow
citation of an I-D in an RFC?"
If the answer is 'always', so be it. If it depends on the circumstances,
then a clear policy, or at least guidance, is in order.
>> if the reason is to explore the development of a technology (version 2
>> said this but by version 6 it had changed to ...), then citing the
>> specific ID by name (including version number) make a lot of sense
>> because the reference is to the document in which a particular
>> technology refinement was introduced
>> if the reason is to say that a particular technical concept was
>> introduced on a particular date, (a variant on the above) then
>> citing the specific ID by name make a lot of sense because the
>> reference is to the document in which the technology was introduced
>> if the reason is to discuss the technology in an abandoned ID (for
>> example an ID series that was abandoned by a working group and will
>> never be published as a RFC) then citing the specific ID by name make a
>> lot of sense to ensure that the reader gets the same version the RFC is
>> but if the purpose is reference a technology under development, for
>> example as being relevant to your RFC, then citing the specific ID by
>> name makes no sense since the reference will likely be out of date by
>> the time the RFC ever gets published
>> I suggest that the question of allowing ID filenames in RFCs is not a
>> yes/no question - some logic should be applied as to why the document is
>> being cited
>> this is entirely unrelated to the question of whether the IETF should
>> stop pretending that IDs evaporate at some arbitrary point in time or if
>> the tools website is stable or not
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest