[rfc-i] BCP/STD references

Alice Russo arusso at amsl.com
Tue Mar 1 16:51:12 PST 2016


Carsten,

Per Section 4.8.6.3 of RFC 7322, the reference should have been:

[BCP13] 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>

In general, when a subseries identifier is made up of more than one RFC, the author has a choice -- to reference either the subseries identifier (e.g., BCP 13) or a single component RFC (e.g., RFC 6838). 

In the case of RFC 7749, the reference should have been either as above or specifically to RFC 6838.

We recommend using "Cite this RFC" (or "Cite this BCP", etc.) on the info pages (e.g., http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838 or http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp13) to easily get what can be inserted into the document.

> So far I have pushed this back
> because I couldn't find a way to do this in RFCXMLv2.

Indeed; there is not a way to do it with v2; with the v3 vocabulary, <referencegroup> will be useful.

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> 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>.
> 
> 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