[rfc-i] draft-iab-styleguide-02 on referencing STDs

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Apr 14 09:41:57 PDT 2014


On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> It is partly an IETF process problem, and it is one that is not getting
> resolved.  

Quite right.

> I don't think what we have documented in the new Style Guide
> introduces any additional complexity to the problem,

Lots of folks up-list disagree, as do I.

> and in some cases
> makes it easier to capture what the authors intended.

A different proposal would be:

- You can't directly reference a multi-RFC STD or BCP until the IETF settles on what this means and tells the RFC Editor what they want references to look like.

- It is fine for an RFC to say "in STD xx" or "in BCP xx" when referring to multi-RFC STDs or BCPs, but to not make those direct references. An example would be "As described in BCP 97, which consists of [RFC3967] and [RFC4897] at the time this document is published, ...".

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list