[rfc-i] Proposal for v3 to simplify most referneces

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Feb 9 13:06:44 PST 2014


On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-02-09 19:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If don't want to change anchor syntax, but we'll need a way to override the default with something that's not subject to anchor naming restrictions.

It seems like your concern about "the default" is the current bibxml reference tool. A different way to deal with the problem (which I don't see how to do without a terrible kludge) is to extend the proposal to also cover "3GPP". At that point, we might as well add the rest of bibxml: "ANSI", "CCITT", "FIPS", "IANA" (yeeps), "IEEE", "ISO", "ITU", "NIST", "OASIS", "PKCS", and "W3C". This means that the processor tool needs to have access to the bibxml for these, but that seems perfectly possible. I think this adds a bit more cost to the RFC Editor to maintain additions to these (the current bibxml has way too few entries for some of these), but the upside of that additional cost would be more predictable and better-formatted references in RFCs.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, and that IMHO is a problem.
> 
> I'll come up with a proposal; hopefully early next week.

That's fine, but if we do a mild ocean-boiling (pond-boiling) now by assuming that bibxml is sufficient, we can still make document writers life easier in a consistent fashion.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list