[rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jun 13 23:48:31 PDT 2017

On 2017-06-13 22:54, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 3/11/17 7:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-00#section->:
>>>     For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs:
>>>     [STDXXX]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC
>>>     Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, Date of
>>>     publication.
>>>              Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
>>>              and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
>>>              "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI,
>>>              Date of publication.
>>>              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>
>>>     Example:
>>>     [STD13]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
>>>     STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987.
>>>       Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
>>>       specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
>>>       November 1987.
>>>              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std13>
>> (1) It seems the formatting is broken? Is the first entry really
>> supposed to be different from the second one?
> Yes, the formatting is broken. Subseries references have long been a
> pain to implement; they're still not right.
>> (2) Why do the individual entries not have a link to
>> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#>?
> Because if someone is referring to the subseries, then they should go to
> the subseries info page for the full list of RFCs and errata associated
> with that document set.

This creates a special case for these entries, which I believe is a bad 

>> (3) What if the spec prose actually wants to refer to one of the
>> documents in the document set?
> They they shouldn't refer to the subseries; they should just reference
> the individual RFC. If they want to do both (reference the subseries and
> later specifically reference an RFC within that subseries) then I think
> we're going to have a discussion with the author to figure out what
> exactly they are trying to do. Are they trying to point someone to
> whatever the current standard or best practice is, or are they trying to
> point to a snapshot in time? Both are perfectly reasonable things to do,
> and we'd adjust the references accordingly.

Which doesn't answer the case what to do when both is happening. Leaving 
this undefined until it happens is just asking for trouble.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list