[rfc-i] Referring to drafts in RFC references
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Nov 12 07:41:55 PST 2012
On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:37 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-11-12 10:15, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Thanks, Ole. This is helpful.
>> Whether we use "working draft" or "work in progress", the goal of having
>> something there that indicates this is not a stable/finished reference
>> will be met.
> Well, the cited ID *is* stable (as it is inmutable)
A big +1 to that.
> -- "not finished" is the thing we need to convey.
Not always. We have history with RFCs that need to point to a specific Internet-Draft that was never turned into an RFC *and never will be*.
This is all a rehash of the work that Ole tried to convey. Heather: what is your intention with respect to the work that was done before on this topic? I was on that design team, and the results weren't all that useful (in my opinion) due to the strong disagreements and lack of focus in the group. I say that because I hope that you convene another group with much tighter focus to advise you, instead of try to come to consensus (although that would be lovely).
This topic is like IPR: IETFers are sure they know all the use cases and proper outcomes, even when people with whom they normally agree have different opinions.
More information about the rfc-interest