[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 28 15:12:43 PDT 2015

On 5/28/2015 3:03 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's right. In fact, "work in progress" is itself anomalous when citing
>> ancient drafts that are no longer in progress; I suggested "working draft"
>> a few years ago.
> As much as Heather might hate this, I think this topic is a good
enough reason to open up this particular worm can again. We know the "in
theory" is as wrong as many of our old theories, and maybe we should
address reality.
> Current:
> [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
>             Work in Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01,
>             June 2013.
> Proposal:
> [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
>             Internet-Draft draft-flanagan-style-01,
>             June 2013,
>             <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-style-01>.

I agree. Given that I-Ds are no longer ephemeral as once intended
anyway, this should also mean updating the I-D boilerplate:

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

That last sentence should be revised to say that I-Ds should be cited by
including their date and version number, and omit the rest.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list