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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed Feb 16 11:53:24 PST 2011



On 2/16/2011 11:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

I certainly agree with that.

> 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