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

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Fri May 29 11:00:30 PDT 2015

>> 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.
> By this line of argument, and given that Independent Submissions get
> RFC numbers too, we should just do away with the distinction between
> I-Ds and RFCs altogether, it seems.  I have to agree with Heather that
> if this is a discussion to have, it's one to have in the IETF
> community and not just on this list.

+1.  I-Ds have not gone through any approval process.

Turning to Julian's decomposition...

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

Including Internet-Draft in the cite is fine.

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

Including the -nn is desirable, but not a show stopper in my view.

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

Yes, keep the "work in progress".

4) What to link to.

Link to the ietf.org copy.  We established an archive directory to support rfcdiff, and we should use it.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list