[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Jun 15 01:37:34 PDT 2017
On 2017-06-15 02:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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 If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date).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.
Best regard, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest