[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 11:38:48 PDT 2017


> On Jun 15, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date).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.
>> ...
> 
> +1
> 

I tend to agree as well.  Though I am not sure “unpublished draft” is exactly right since the draft is available online.  We treat Internet Drafts as temporary, and at the same time permanent.  Starting to seem more like the later.

Why don’t we include a link to the Internet Draft in the reference like we do for RFCs?

Thanks,
Bob


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20170615/24807840/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list