[rfc-i] Updating one paragraph of RFC 2026 to reflect current practice
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri May 29 07:44:27 PDT 2015
On May 29, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:19:03PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> This is short and to the point. If the community agrees, we can probably get this done easily.
> I do not agree. The reason I don't is because an I-D that doesn't
> result in an RFC is, IMO, still a work in progress; it's just one that
> didn't actually complete. There is nothing unusual about this notion.
> My PhD thesis was a work in progress when I abandoned it. I have seen
> building sites that are clearly an abandoned work in progress. These
> are not complete works.
The proposed wording says that the referenced draft must be listed with a specific file number:
Such a reference must be to a specific edition of an
Internet-Draft by indicating its full filename, such as "draft-ietf-
Draft -03 is no more or less of a "work in progress" than an RFC because both can be updated later. Numerous RFCs are updated later; in fact you and I are co-authors one one that we *expect* to have a -bis on after it is published.
Also, draft -04 might have already been published, so -03 is no longer a "work in progress".
Also, if everyone knows that no one will publish -04, like your thesis, it truly isn't a work in progress unless completely unexpected work happens (similar to an RFC that was supposed to be stable, but wasn't).
Given that, do you still believe that there is a noticeable difference between labelling a specific version (the -03) of a draft and an RFC as works in progress?
More information about the rfc-interest