[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 16 11:16:21 PDT 2017


On 6/15/17 11:38 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 
>> 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 If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date).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  Though I am not sure “unpublished draft” is exactly right since the draft is available online.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?
> 
>

Historically, it's to enforce the face that I-Ds are not equal to RFCs,
and because I-D URLs were ephemeral (since I-Ds would disappear after
six months). The latter is no longer true. How do you feel about the former?

-Heather


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list