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

Scott O. Bradner sob at harvard.edu
Sat Feb 12 11:10:24 PST 2011

> 2026 appears to only have envisioned the latter case.

when it comes to normative references that is correct


>From rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org  Sat Feb 12 12:17:32 2011
X-Original-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
Delivered-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
X-Original-To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.96
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:17:19 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
	rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
References: <20110212160933.0620585612D at newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20110212160933.0620585612D at newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Possible new text re I-Ds [RFC citations committee I-D
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions."
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>,
	<mailto:rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>,
	<mailto:rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org

On 2/12/11 8:09 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> How does adding the number change the state of the ID? It's still "work
>> in progress" (or a "working draft").
> the point is that you are not saying 'look at this specific document'
> you do not want to do that because the document is likely to be replaced by
> an update even before your RFC can be published - 2026 wanted to have
> references that had to be relied on to be stable
> the text out of 2026 says
>     Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
>     that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
>     phrase "Work in Progress"  without referencing an Internet-Draft.
>     This may also be done in a standards track document itself  as long
>     as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
>     complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
>     the "Work in Progress".

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.
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list