[rfc-i] Updating one paragraph of RFC 2026 to reflect current practice

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 29 08:07:30 PDT 2015

On 2015-05-29 16:44, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> ...

There are several orthogonal things to consider:

1) Whether the formatted citation should contain the seriesName (as per 
xml2rfc vocab) "Internet-Draft".

2) Whether a citation should contain the draft name (incl. "-nn")

3) Whether we need an extra indicator such as "work in progress"

4) What to link to.

My 2 cents:

1) Let's include "Internet-Draft". (Otherwise, we'll need *yet another* 
special case in our formatting tools for simply no good reason)

2) Yes, it should (and it seems we all agree on that as the current 
style guide says that, too)

3) My preference would be not to, but if we have to "Working Draft" 
would be better. Many people read "work in progress" as "work 
*currently* in progress", which simply is incorrect.

4) I can understand why people would *not* want to link to 
tools.ietf.org. In practice, the full draft name is good enough to find 
the document. Some formatters will automatically link to tools.ietf.org 
no matter what...

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list