[rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Mar 5 09:18:19 PST 2014
On 3/5/14 2:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm happy with the draft except for one subsection.
>> 126.96.36.199. Referencing Internet-Drafts
> I want to strongly support the proposed inclusion of
> the Internet-Draft file name.
> The citations committee a few years ago (see
> draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-recs-01) actually made four
> specific recommendations:
>> 1. The RFC Editor should include the exact publication date in the
>> citation of an Internet-Draft.
> Including the file name makes this less important.
But not un-important.
>> 2. Authors should be allowed to cite several versions of the same
> This is a corner case but occasionally it's necessary. Can it be mentioned
> in the style guide?
>> 3. The RFC Editor is encouraged include the full Internet-Draft file
>> name in citations.
>> 4. A citation of an Internet-Draft should use the phrase "Working
>> Draft" rather than "Work in Progress" whenever appropriate.
>> (Stream-specific policies and practices might prohibit this
>> practice within certain RFC document streams.)
> The argument for this is that drafts that expired years ago are
> sometimes cited, and calling them "Work in Progress" is simply
I agree with this, but I believe I have a process problem. The Style
Guide is intended as an Informational RFC. Informational RFCs cannot
update BCPs. The term "Work in Progress" is explicitly used in BCP 9,
aka RFC 2026. Unless someone updates RFC 2026, I don't think I can
change this phrase.
More information about the rfc-interest