[rfc-i] reference extensions

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 17 10:44:43 PST 2014


On 2014-02-17 19:28, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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.

You seem to have a different understanding of "immutable" then :-)



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list