[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 12:23:37 PDT 2014


On 26/03/2014 19:37, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-03-26 01:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> ...
>> 2) Maybe it should also be stated that "tinyurl" and its equivalents
>> are not allowed, i.e. URIs must point directly to the target. However,
>> I suppose DOIs are allowed.
>> ...
> 
> What about PURLs?

I have no opinion about that; I had to Google PURL...

But it does look as if this area needs more comprehensive language than
the current draft has. As far as I can see, devices such as DOIs, PURLs
and tinyurls do nothing to ensure that the target content is stable,
which is what really matters for a reference.

    Brian


> 
>> ...
>>> That doesn't work for me.
>>>
>>> It makes Mark Nottingham's and Tim Bray's super-stable blog URIs
>>> disallowed (personal web page), but would make a random blogger.com page
>>> acceptable.
>>
>> 3) Not as a normative reference. But isn't it the case that normative
>> references only arise in standards track documents?* So this should
>> be an IETF stream decision in any case. I would expect any decision
>> to use a URI as a normative reference would be subject to IESG
>> approval.
>>
>> *I am aware that some Informational documents emerge with "normative"
>> references. I think that's a bug, but it's a stream issue anyway.
> 
> I don't see why informational documents can't have normative references,
> but that's indeed a separate discussion.
> 
>> ...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> .
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list