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

Dave Crocker 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 
qualify.  Ever.

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.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list