[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Thu Oct 16 04:03:15 PDT 2008

On 2008-10-15 19:11 Joe Touch said the following:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 7:44 AM -0700 10/15/08, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> The term is one associated with Internet Drafts; it doesn't necessarily
>>> have the meaning it once intended (e.g., IDs are more RFCs, and RFCs are
>>> more 'done'). Note that I used it in caps "Work in Progress", which
>>> intends that it is a term with a special meaning.
>> Where is that meaning defined?
> In every I-D:
> ---
> Status of this Memo
> ...
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
>    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>    Drafts.
>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> ---

I don't see why that precludes having a citation for a draft which adds
the note '(Historic work in progress, 2013)', or 'Historic (2013) work in
progress'.  Not a lie, and a helpful characterization.  No?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081016/e4251ebc/signature.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list