[rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 16 11:24:01 PDT 2017
On 2017-06-16 20:06, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> 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.
In the optimal case, we can define something that is not restricted to
IETF document series...
>>>> (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.
Right now, it will fail because the anchor elements would be in conflict.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest