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

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Aug 17 09:51:38 PDT 2012

On 8/16/12 5:10 PM, 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.
> --Paul Hoffman

OK, I can see we need to consider citations and perhaps packaging, but
I'm not seeing that as a Format problem as much as a Style Guide
problem.  What am I missing?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list