[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Oct 14 14:57:25 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
> sometimes an RFC needs to (non-normatively) cite an expired internet 
> draft. For instance, because
> - the draft was a WG work item, but an individual took over after the WG 
> abandoned that draft, or
> - the draft was abandoned, but still contains useful historic 
> information relevant to the RFC (such as a requirements document that 
> never made it to RFC).
> I hear from the RFC Editor that the current policy is:
>        Non-normative references to Internet Drafts are allowed, but they
>        must take the following restricted form: the author(s), the title,
>        the phrase "Work in Progress", and the date; for example:
>                 [doe13] Doe, J., "The Deployment of IPv6",
>                         Work in Progress, May 2013. -- 
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style-manual-08.txt>
> Of course that is totally misleading if the draft in fact is *not* work 
> in progress, such as in the cases above.
> It seems that an accurate and useful citation would be:
>                 [doe13] Doe, J., "The Deployment of IPv6",
>                         "abandoned work", May 2013, <...URL...>.
> ...potentially augmented with an annotation explaining the citation 
> ("work on this internet draft didn't complete, but it still contains 
> useful historic information, because of...").

Some expired IDs don't have URLs - or shouldn't. The were written before
the current policy of archiving past IDs.

IMO, these should be listed as "Work in Progress (expired)" or somesuch.
 They are appropriate for giving credit where due, but not for
information required to understand the document, IMO.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list