[rfc-i] Possible new text re I-Ds [RFC citations committee I-D issued]

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sat Feb 12 11:06:41 PST 2011


>As has been pointed out before, however, there are multiple reasons for 
>an RFC or other document to point to Internet Drafts. One set of reasons 
>would point to a specific draft, another set of reasons would point to 
>all the drafts in a named progression. 2026 appears to only have 
>envisioned the latter case.

Putting on my librarian hat (it fits about as well as a junior lawyer
hat), an I-D is a series, from -0 to -N.  Just like with other series,
e.g., magazines, sometimes you want one item, sometimes you want the
whole thing.  It's straightforward enough to define ways to refer to
a series or an item.

I have to agree that if the main reason not to refer to I-D items is
that 2026 says not to, it's time to update 2026, not to try to stop
people from doing what they are going to do whether we like it or not.
It's reasonable to say that standards track documents can't depend on
I-Ds, but there are a lot of RFCs that aren't standards track.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list