[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
tony at att.com
Wed Mar 26 21:05:49 PDT 2014
On 3/26/14, 5:24 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 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?
I like the phraseology of "trust, but verify", using your guidelines as
points of verification with the author. If someone's blog post truly is
the best reference, then so be it.
More information about the rfc-interest