[rfc-i] "Work in Progress" and "Working Draft" in draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-recs-00

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed Feb 16 09:54:18 PST 2011


Hi, all,

I agree with most of Alice's observations. Some notes below...

Joe

On 2/16/2011 7:48 AM, Alice Hagens wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Thanks to the citations committee for their efforts.
> A few comments re: text about "Work in Progress" and "Working Draft".
>
> In Section 6:
>     [RFC 2026] specifies that active IETF track Internet-Drafts be cited
>     as "Work in Progress".  This has created some confusion, especially
>     in the case where a draft being cited has both expired and also is
>     not actively being worked on.  So we RECOMMEND that "Working Draft"
>     be used, rather than "Work in Progress", except for an active IETF-
>     track Internet-Draft.
>
> Suggest rephrasing the second sentence to be more clear. (Took me a second read to see that the original is consistent with Section 4, which recommends using "Working Draft" for a "historical Internet-Draft".)  Why is "IETF-track" is mentioned here, especially if the recommendations are for any stream to adopt as they see fit?
>
> Perhaps:
>    So we RECOMMEND that "Working Draft" be used for expired Internet-Drafts,
>    and "Work in Progress" for active [IETF-track] Internet-Drafts.

I don't see why IETF-track docs are different in this regard. Not all 
end up as RFCs either. It is certainly useful to differentiate between 
drafts currently under active revision, vs. those already known expired 
(as below).

Any other distinction is irrelevant; if there is any difference between 
IETF-track and not, it's captured in the name, or can be noted as the 
product of its home WG or host group (e.g., IAB).

> For comparison, in Section 4:
>    4.  If appropriate, a citation of a historical Internet-Draft should
>        use the phrase "Working Draft" instead of "Work in Progress".
>
> Side note: Suggest "historical Internet-Draft" be replaced with "expired Internet-Draft" or otherwise to clarify its meaning. (I believe this has been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion of draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-recs-00.)

I agree; "historical" can be confused with moving work to Historic. Not 
all drafts are "historical" (some are lost to history, as has been 
noted); they're merely abandoned work.

> In Section 6.1:
>    9.  For IETF track drafts, HOWPUBLISHED MUST be "Work in Progress".
>        For other Internet-Drafts, the HOWPUBLISHED field SHOULD read
>        "Working Draft" instead.
>
> Here, the distinction between "Work in Progress" and "Working Draft" is different than described in Section 4. Here, it is based on stream that produced the I-D (IETF stream versus other streams); earlier, it is based on whether or not the I-D is "historical". I suggest that the distinction be consistent, whether an I-D is cited in an RFC or other document.
>
> Currently, it seems:
> - "Working Draft" means the I-D is not active (when citing an I-D in an RFC).
> - "Working Draft" means the I-D was not produced by the IETF stream (when citing an I-D in other documents).
>
> Side note: The term "IETF track draft" does not seem ideal because of the effort to define "IETF stream" (RFC 4844) and because of potential confusion with "Standards Track".  Perhaps it would be more clear to mention a draft that is produced by the IETF stream or is intended for publication in the IETF stream.
>
> Thanks,
> Alice
> RFC Production Center
> _______________________________________________
> 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