[rfc-i] Comments about draft-flanagan-style-00

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 09:20:34 PST 2012

>>          use the phrase "Work in Progress".  If the I-D referenced has a
>>          version published as an RFC, references must also include the
>>          RFC.
> Why is the latter that a requirement?

Good point. If the reference is to a specific point in the draft that
is not present in the RFC, then mentioning the RFC is misleading.

Also, the former citations committee discussed the phrase "Work in Progress"
at some length. It is inaccurate when applied to work that has long
been abandoned, and we suggested that "Working Draft" would make
more sense in such cases.

>>          Example:
>>             [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H., "RFC Style Guide", Work in
>>                         Progress, draft-flanagan-style-02, 01 March
>>                         2012.
> I note that this deviates from the format generated by xml2rfc; is that
> intentional?

Including the exact date as well as the (file) name is useful
when the author intends to cite a specific version. Apart from
that, the example is the format used in current RFCs.

Look at references [RPL] and [RPL-07] in RFC 6294 for an
example of how not to do it (caused by the current rules).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list