[rfc-i] Proposal for v3 to simplify most referneces
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Feb 9 10:46:50 PST 2014
On Feb 9, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> I think you're trying to solve several different problems at the same time, with the result of it not being generic enough.
> For instance, we know that people are unhappy with 3GPP references, because "3GPP" is a prefix not allowed in an anchor, yet your proposal addresses just IETF document references.
Naming of anchors is *completely* orthogonal to this proposal. The anchor is still required, and it keeps the legacy name requirements for XML names. If you want to change that requirement (and I'm kinda surprised you do...), we can do so, regardless of this proposal.
> I believe we need to come up with solutions that address each of the problems we have in an orthogonal way, so that they apply to "other" documents as well.
Even though the vast majority of referenced documents are RFCs and Internet Drafts? How effectively must we boil this ocean? With this proposal, there is no change from the v2 method for non-IETF documents.
More information about the rfc-interest