[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
dhc at dcrocker.net
Wed Mar 26 12:33:36 PDT 2014
On 3/26/2014 9:15 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 3/25/14, 6:49 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
>> Yes, it's hard to check. In doubt, trust the author of the spec.
>> He/she is interested in providing useful links.
> I agree with this sentiment. However, I think it is also worthwhile
> having the RFC editor make a pass on the URIs with the author to verify
> that these indeed are the "best" URIs. Guidance on what makes a URI "the
> best" is somewhat subjective, but using Heather's list as guidelines
> instead of hard-and-fast rules makes the most sense to me.
Here's a thought:
Constraints on choice of normative references
belong to the stream.
So the RFC Editor puts whatever "form" requirements it deems
appropriate, but a stream can impose additional "content" requirements
that suit the stream.
In the example of IETF consensus documents -- and especially standards
and bcps -- one could imagine rather strict demand for likely stability
of all normative references. And no, I would expect a blog not to
This topic is increasingly looking like "here be dragons", but I think
that treating 'semantic' issues of references the same as we treat
'semantic' issues of document document makes sense. Delegate to the stream.
More information about the rfc-interest