[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jun 13 23:51:35 PDT 2017

On 2017-06-13 23:02, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 3/11/17 7:38 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...furthermore:
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-00#section->:
>>>     (...)  If the referenced I-D was
>>>     also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
>> There are cases where this doesn't make a lot of sense - if one cites a
>> specific historic Internet Draft because something that was later
>> removed or changed, why would it be relevant whether a later draft was
>> subsequently published as RFC?
> I can see a situation, in a purely historic context, where this might be
> unnecessary. I can see many more situations where having the information
> that an I-D became an RFC, and the fact that material was removed before
> approval to publish means that the material should be considered
> carefully in a larger context, is important. I think it's more likely to
> have the latter situation than the former, and so the guidance makes sense.

Is it "guidance" or a requirement? In the former case, please avoid the 
term "must".

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list