[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Paul Kyzivat paul.kyzivat at comcast.net
Fri Jun 16 13:09:51 PDT 2017

On 6/16/17 3:13 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 6/16/17 11:42 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 6/16/17 2:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-16 20:19, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>> ...
>>> There'll be edge cases, right. But if an ID hasn't been updated in
>>> years, it's likely abandoned, right?
>> Isn't it sufficient to define that an ID that is the most recent version
>> and hasn't expired is a work in progress, and that others are historic?
> I don't think it's quite that tidy. For example, there are drafts that
> are expired but which are in one of the stream manager's queue for
> consideration (e.g.,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-young-entity-category/).

*That* is a whole different issue. IMO those should not expire!

> There's also a certain consideration about how useful it is to make this
> distinction when someone reads the RFC referencing these I-Ds in a year;
> all the I-Ds may be historic, or may be revised, or may be replaced, or
> a mix of all the above. Unless the author of the RFC doing the
> referencing is careful to explain the context in which he or she is
> referencing the I-D (which they should do regardless) I'm not sure we're
> helping the reader with an "the I-D being referenced was older than six
> months at the time this RFC was published".

Yeah, guess so.

If change description from "Work in Progress" to "Working Draft" then it 
ages better, and maybe no need to make a distinction for historic.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list