[rfc-i] Comments about draft-flanagan-style-00
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Nov 11 09:02:05 PST 2012
below some feedback on 4.8, "References":
> o References
> [To be removed upon publication] This section is still under
> considerable discussion.
Why "to be removed"?
> The RFC style uses one of the many variants on reference styles.
> See the examples in this document, and note the ordering for
> multiple authors: the last author listed is treated differently
> when referencing RFCs and I-Ds.
This is news to me. Could you elaborate?
> URLs and DNS Names in RFCs
> The use of URLs in references is acceptable as long as the URL
> is the most stable and direct reference possible. The URL will
> be verified as valid during the RFC editorial process.
That's a much appreciated change!
> Personal web pages are not considered stable and will not be
> accepted as a reference.
This might be hard to check in practice.
> For 3 Authors or More:
> [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Last name, First
> initial., and First initial. Last name, "RFC
> Title", BCP/FYI/STD ## (if applicable),
> RFC ####, Date of Publicaiton.
> Referencing Internet-Drafts
> References to Internet-Drafts can only appear as Informative
> references. Given that several revisions of an I-D may be
> produced in a short time frame, references must include exact
> publication date, the full Internet-Draft file name, and the
...as some readers might assume the filename to contain an extension
such as ".txt".
> use the phrase "Work in Progress". If the I-D referenced has a
> version published as an RFC, references must also include the
Why is the latter that a requirement?
> [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H., "RFC Style Guide", Work in
> Progress, draft-flanagan-style-02, 01 March
I note that this deviates from the format generated by xml2rfc; is that
[Part2] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21 (work in progress),
1) placement of "(work in progress), and
2) no day in date.
No matter what the answer is, it would be good to fix either the style
guide or the tools.
> Referencing Errata
> The following format is recommended when a reference to an
> errata report is necessary:
> [Err1912] RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
It would be awesome if the RFC Editor could assign a stable URI for each
erratum. The format above is a disservice to anyone who actually wants
to read the erratum.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest