[rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 16 11:06:47 PDT 2017

On 6/13/17 11:48 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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 thing.

I don't think it is a special case, per se. I think this is the case of
how to handle sub-series. They are a slightly different beast than just
straight RFCs.

>>> (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.

So, you're asking about when someone wants to refer to the current
documents in the subseries, AND refer to a specific RFC that happens to
be in the subseries at the time of publication? I don't see anything
preventing that, though it likely will result in a conversation between
the authors and RPC to make sure the intent is clear.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list