[rfc-i] Possible new text re I-Ds [RFC citations committee I-D issued]
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Feb 13 12:28:06 PST 2011
On 2011-02-13 10:26, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> I think that's at the root of the argument. Current practice
>> is to follow what 2026 says for normative references, which is
>> entirely correct IMHO. But the practice for other reasons for
>> references to drafts really needs some fexibility.
> fwiw - I think that, in most cases, refering to a specific verion of
> an ID is a way to guarantee that the resuting RFC will be obsolete
> before it is published (except for the specific cases that I
> mentioned in my prior email)
Yes, for drafts that in current development and truly deserve the
phrase Work in Progress.
No, for drafts that are long dead or if there is a specific reason
to cite a specific version. Certainly these are the exception
rather than the rule.
Clearly circumstances alter cases - so I think that our first
recommendation on this:
>> 1. The RFC Editor should include the exact publication date in the
>> citation of an Internet-Draft.
should perhaps become a "may".
A bit more radically, this suggests that
>> 3. If further disambiguation is necessary, the RFC Editor should
>> have the discretion to include the full Internet-Draft file name.
would logically become
3. The RFC Editor should have the discretion to include the full
Internet-Draft file name, including the version number if
disambiguation is necessary.
As Ran has noted, the RFC Editor policy (and hence the committee
recommendations) should not trample on each stream's policy in
this surprisingly tricky area.
(Ran, please take this as my agreement to your friendly amendments.)
> does not seem to be a good idea to purposefully set up procedures
> to publish obsolete RFCs
More information about the rfc-interest