[rfc-i] BCP/STD references

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Mar 1 11:03:23 PST 2016


On 02/03/2016 05:07, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I just had a look at RFC 7749.  This contains a reference:
> 
>    [BCP13]    Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
>               Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
>               RFC 6838, January 2013,
>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp13>.

The bug in that is giving the RFC number. The canonical URL is fine.
If you look at that URL, it offers the following txt citation
(and no xml citation for some reason):

"Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4289,
December 2005.

Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, January 2013.

<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp13>"

IMHO, STD should be put out of its misery, since real standards are mixtures of
Proposed Standard, residual Draft Standard, and rare Internet Standard RFCs.

    Brian

> 
> bcp-index.txt says:
> 
> 0013 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:
>      Registration Procedures. N. Freed, J. Klensin, T. Hansen. December
>      2005. (Format: TXT=74243 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2048) (Also RFC4289,
>      RFC6838)
> 
> Hmm, different title.  OK, RFC 4289 and RFC 6383.  Let's see:
> 
> 4289 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
>      Procedures. N. Freed, J. Klensin. December 2005. (Format: TXT=21502
>      bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2048) (Also BCP0013) (Status: BEST CURRENT
>      PRACTICE) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4289)
> 
> 6838 Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures. N. Freed, J.
>      Klensin, T. Hansen. January 2013. (Format: TXT=72942 bytes)
>      (Obsoletes RFC4288) (Also BCP0013) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)
>      (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6838)
> 
> So is this a reference to RFC 6383 only (then why is is labeled BCP13,
> implying this is about the BCP as a whole) or to both?  Section 4.8.6.3
> of RFC 7322 tells me I need to put in all RFCs for a BCP or STD
> reference.  (Unfortunately, it doesn't really tell me how to handle,
> say, STD9, which is one well-ripened standard and half a dozen "updates"
> documents.)  If this isn't done for the RFC editor's own documents, is
> that maybe a hint that 4.8.6.3 isn't as practical as it needs to be?  Or
> is it just an artifact of old tooling?
> 
> Background for my question: I'd like to be able to do a {{?BCP0013}}
> (i.e., add an informative reference to BCP13) in kramdown-rfc and have
> that handled entirely automatically*).  So far I have pushed this back
> because I couldn't find a way to do this in RFCXMLv2.  Now we'll get
> <referencegroup>...
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> *) There is also the question whether someone will maintain a references
> library like the one for RFCs on xml2rfc.ietf.org.  But one question at
> a time.  https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629/issues/5
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list