[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Sun Jun 18 02:26:35 PDT 2017

> On Jun 17, 2017, at 12:50 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 for purely historical references.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.

I think it would be good to file an errata on RFC2026 in any case.  What’s happing now does not match the text in RFC2026.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20170618/bb6b74b9/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list