[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 14:35:22 PDT 2014
On 3/26/2014 2:24 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 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?
Well, I kept to 'normative' refs intentionally, because I think the
nature of the concern for stability of those references is much clearer.
So we might be able to lock down that specific issue within bounded time.
Informative references can be stickier, IMO. Some refs really are
foundational and others are mere seasoning. The former benefit from
more stability, but need the requirement be as strict as normative? Mumble.
I could formulate arguments I'd find credible for many different
positions about this. And that degree of inherent ambiguity makes me
think that the right answer is to have the RFC Editor retain control
over criteria for Informative references, so that there is a single,
presumably-coherent, set of rules across all the streams for them.
In other words, I'm not seeing a compelling need to delegate the rules
for Informative Refs, and I do see the benefit of some simplification.
None of which proposes specific rules, as you will no doubt have noticed...
>> This topic is increasingly looking like "here be dragons",
> Have we had a topic over the last two weeks that didn't introduce
> dragons with sharp, pointy teeth?
I said nothing about the teeth... FWIW, was mostly thinking of
associated fire and burning, more than crunching and tearing.
More information about the rfc-interest