[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Oct 15 10:24:50 PDT 2008

Joe Touch wrote:
> ....

Maybe I'm a bit slow with process issues like this, but to me, as a 
reader, "work in progress" means just that: this is not finished, but 
somebody is working on it.

So, again, what's the best way to cite something that once was published 
as ID, but was abandoned?

It seems to me that there is none, except by lying to the reader.

BR, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list