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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 11:27:42 PST 2011


Loa,

As far as the wider world is concerned, 'Work in Progress'
is even more confusing, when applied to a draft that hasn't been
touched since 1997. If there's a suitable alternative phrase
that is commonly used in citations, I'd be happy to adopt it,
but 'Working Draft' seems to be what I see most. We can't use
'Unpublished Draft' because posting on the Web is generally
considered to be publication these days. Do you know of any
other alternative?

(I have been forced in my university's scheme for listing
publications to list I-Ds as 'Technical Report' but that really
doesn't seem appropriate either.)

Regards
   Brian Carpenter




On 2011-02-17 06:30, Loa Andersson wrote:
> All,
> 
> I'm not entirely up to speed on this, but I have the feeling that it
> is a bit confusing to "Working Draft" since it is very close to Working
> group draft" a term we use frequently in several working groups.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2011-02-16 16:48, 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.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>> 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