[rfc-i] reference extensions

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Feb 17 10:28:40 PST 2014


On Feb 17, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

>>>> Having a canonical RFC have an inclusion from an external source seems like a very bad idea for stability. Instead, we should keep requiring that the canonical RFC be complete and unchanging.
>>> 
>>> Yes, the canonical document needs to be self-contained. Your proposal doesn't solve this, unless you assume that the new notation always identifies immutable information.
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> You do assume that?

Yes, that's what I meant by "yes". :-)

> In which case you'll need to very clear about the kind of references that you'll support.

True.

> For instance, unversioned ID references (such as those in <http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/>) will not work.

Sure they will. They work fine in Internet Drafts, just as they do in the current way of writing drafts. They do not work in canonical RFCs.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list