[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 16 11:19:10 PDT 2017

On 6/14/17 5:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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 If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date).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.

Who would make the call as to whether an I-D is a work in progress or a
[stale|historic|overtaken by events|your favorite term here] I-D? It's
not a simple case of time, and the author of the I-D being referenced
might have a difference of opinion than the author doing the referencing.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list