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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 13:03:08 PDT 2014

On 15/04/2014 04:41, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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, ...".

What he said. I wish we'd managed to make the ISD proposal stick, which
would have offered a clean solution to this problem, but we didn't
(and it was partly my fault, as I failed to get IESG consensus on
this at the IESG Retreat in May 2005).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list