[rfc-i] RFC Format requirements draft
sm at resistor.net
Fri Sep 21 14:20:54 PDT 2012
At 12:57 21-09-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>Actually, that's an interesting question that came up while we were
>drafting the document. Given that 2223bis was never published, is it
>appropriate to refer to that document? Half the folks said yes, half
For the folks who have been saying no, you could always remind them
that it was established practice to reference 2223bis. The RFC
Editor could publish 2223bis as Informational for the purposes of
this exercise. Once the RFC Editor is done with it, it shouldn't be
a problem to reclassify the RFC as Historic. The argument is that
it's for the archival series. A "work in progress" reference could
be used if it's easier. The RFC Editor also has the ability to make
use of its long-lived URLs.
>I see your point, but saying "non-US or other people with a tiny
>alphabet" didn't sound good either. Any suggestions?
Romanization of the author name will no longer be necessary; authors will
be able to write their names in their own language.
More information about the rfc-interest