[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 14:50:55 PDT 2017
On 17/06/2017 08:51, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> rare, and the distinction is a judgment call. But it disturbs me (mildly)
>> that the phrase "Work in Progress" is occasionally used when it's
>> manifestly untrue.
> It isn't really. The document in question was in progress when work
> halted. There's no way to know whether it'll ever be picked up again.
> I don't really care about this, but I sort of hate opening important
> procedural documents needlessly.
Agreed. There are many more important issues in BCP9 that we leave
untouched. But IMHO the way "Work in Progress" is mentioned in
RFC2026 leaves the RFC Editor discretion to use a different phrase
for purely historical references. If the RFC Editor doesn't want to,
I will not sulk.
More information about the rfc-interest