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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Nov 11 09:40:40 PST 2012


On 2012-11-11 18:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>           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

The only precise way to identify a specific version is by stating the 
full ID name (incl. number). The date is ambiguous, even if you include 
the day-of-month.

> 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).

You mean because these...

>    [RPL]      Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Clausen,
>               T., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik,
>               R., and J. Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low
>               power and Lossy Networks", Work in Progress, March 2011.
> >
>    [RPL-07]   Winter, T., Ed. and P. Thubert, Ed., "RPL: IPv6 Routing
>               Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks", Work
>               in Progress, March 2010.

do not include the ID name? Agreed, that's an improvement.

In any case it would be great if we could get a decision on the format 
(incl. the "Work In Progress" vs "Working Draft" thing you mentioned), 
so that the tools can be adjusted so that the RFC Production Center 
doesn't need to fight with xml2rfc to get to the desired output.

Best regards, Julian




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list