[rfc-i] Format for STDs, BCPs, FIYs

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 00:08:32 PDT 2012


On 17/08/2012 01:10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> My first thought is that this is feature request for the RFC Ed website
>> on how we might logically link associated RFC together, not a request to
>> consider something new in how individual RFC are formatted.  Is that
>> correct?
> Nope, it affects the references in RFCs as well. For example, RFC 6648 says:
> ...
>    Use of this naming convention is not mandated by the Internet
>    Standards Process [BCP9] or IANA registration rules [BCP26].
> ...
>    [BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
>               3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
> ...
> That reference is wrong. BCP 9 consists of both RFC 2026 *and* RFC 56576, but the latter RFC is not listed. The same problem exists for multi-RFC documents in the BCP and STD series. The Production Center sometimes comes up with creative solutions to this (such as we saw in RFC 6698), but they are sometimes awkward.

That problem is surely one of maintaining a citation library that contains
the appropriate concatenation of RFC references for each compound document.

The text concatenations, as at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp9.txt,
were created as a pragmatic fix some years ago but are clearly not ideal.

It is of course for each stream, not the RFC Editor, to decide what types
of compound document exist in each stream. FYI is now a closed series, and
the status of STD is dubious since RFC 6410 (which you missed - it is also
part of BCP9). RFC 1311 really doesn't help matters, either.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list