[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Mar 26 14:24:30 PDT 2014
On 3/26/14, 12:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.
I think this is reasonable; I will discuss with my co-author. Any
thoughts on guidance for informative references? or are you in (I think
it was Ted's) camp re: trust the author?
> 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
Have we had a topic over the last two weeks that didn't introduce
dragons with sharp, pointy teeth? :)
More information about the rfc-interest