[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
craig at aland.bbn.com
Fri Feb 11 12:12:13 PST 2011
> > Scott,
> > 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?
> > Regards
> > Brian
> > 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.
You're asking us to walk a plank I'd prefer NOT to see the committee walk.
First, reminder that we're making recommendations to two audiences:
* people publishing outside the RFC series
* people publishing within the RFC series
For those outside the RFC series, we have zero control -- they can cite
anytime they please. All we're trying to do is help them get the citation
For those within the RFC series, the only rules that seem to exist are
for standards RFCs (as stated in 2026), which we said took precedence.
Beyond that, as people have noted, there are many reasons for
citing an I-D (we can argue about which reasons are better or worse but
they're all valid to some degree). Crafting a taxonomy that will inevitably
be wrong, OBE, or simply overspecific seems a mistake and likely to cause
Sandy and team grief ("gee, this RFC cites an I-D -- is that permitted
under rule 3.14159 or rule 2.71828 clause zed?").
More information about the rfc-interest