[rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 10:12:19 PST 2014
On 06/03/2014 06:18, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 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.
Not in IETF Stream RFCs, I agree. That's the point of the
final parenthesis above.
More information about the rfc-interest