[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
line is.

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.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-02-17 06:54, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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