[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jun 14 17:03:26 PDT 2017

On 14/06/2017 20:37, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 23:02, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> I can see a situation, in a purely historic context, where this might be
>> unnecessary. 
> (Ceterum censeo:)
> I believe it would be a good thing to clearly identify “historical”(*) references (as in: here you can find out how this document came to be the way it is) as a separate class from other “informative” (as in: here is more information that helps in processing the technical content of this document) ones.
> The rule being discussed would then apply to informative, not to historical, references.

This triggers one of my hobby-horses, I'm afraid.

If I refer to an I-D because it's useful reading but not yet published, I'm happy with it being tagged as "Work in progress". A smart reader may even have the idea to look for a corresponding RFC.

If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date). Calling it "Work in progress" is either inappropriate or simply untrue.

Today we have no metadata to separate the two cases.


> Grüße, Carsten
> (*) “historical" as in documented, archival, chronicled, not “historic" as in significant, notable, momentous, consequential, memorable, unforgettable, remarkable; famous, famed, celebrated, renowned, legendary; landmark, sensational, groundbreaking, epoch-making, earth-shattering.
> _______________________________________________
> 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