[rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 16 11:54:06 PDT 2017


On 6/16/17 11:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

How? The anchor element can (should!) be unique, differentiating between
a reference to STD### versus a reference to RFC####.

(I hate that feeling that I must be missing something obvious.)

-Heather






More information about the rfc-interest mailing list