[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 13:42:43 PDT 2008

On 2008-10-17 07:59, Bob Braden wrote:
> Jon Postel adopted the convention of "Work in Progress" as an
> effectively meaningless designation for Internet Draft references.
> Since Internet Drafts vanish (supposedly) 6 months after they
> are published but RFCs last forever, any additional information
> in an I-D reference in an RFC could become false at a later time.

I believe that "Work in Progress" is more or less standard in
academic publishing to give credit to something that hasn't yet
been published and perhaps never will be. It's one step up
from "Personal Communication". I believe I've also seen
"Unpublished Draft" or "Unpublished Manuscript" citations.

Anyway, the point of this ramble is: let's stick to phrases that
are generally used, and not invent more IETF jargon.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list