[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 11:36:30 PST 2011
In my mind, using 'Working Draft' needs to be a judgment call.
The mere fact that an I-D is technically expired doesn't imply
that it is no longer work in progress. If it hasn't been updated
for 15 years, it's pretty certain that it's not in progress, but
I don't believe we can define rules that determine where the dividing
So, for streams that decide to use the 'Working Draft' option,
I think we have to leave the decision up to the stream, with
of course a minimum requirement that the I-D is indeed expired.
I agree that the text needs to be clarified and made self-consistent.
On 2011-02-17 06:54, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
> I agree with most of Alice's observations. Some notes below...
> On 2/16/2011 7:48 AM, Alice Hagens wrote:
>> 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?
>> So we RECOMMEND that "Working Draft" be used for expired
>> 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
> 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
>> 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.
>> RFC Production Center
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest