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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 13:19:43 PST 2011


On 2011-02-12 08:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>>
> 
> The IETF could allow (or create) an outside entity* to create a non-RFC publication series, say "Technical Notes," to allow for publication of I-Ds that do not reach RFC status but are none-the-less interesting, if only as an example of what path not to take. 

I find http://tools.ietf.org/id/ entirely sufficient for this.

> The boiler plate could include something like 
> 
> "This document is not standards setting and is published solely for the historical record."

I find the following OK:

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

       Brian

> *Of course, I would not claim that people wouldn't publish such, and claim it had the IETF's blessing, but the
> damage IMO would be lessened if it was done by a third party. 
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> 
>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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
>>> discussing
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> 
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list