[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 14:07:56 PDT 2008

> An aside: the cases that Julian cites for wanting more explicit
> references to Internet Drafts could be handled another way:  simply
> publish the Drafts as RFCs and reference them as RFCs.  Not all RFCs
> are standards track, and in fact the independent submission stream is
> often used to publish documents that WGs have considered and for some
> reason did not pursue, but which were thought to be of some historic
> interest.

The counterpoint to this proposal is that there are cases when drafts,
individual or other, are purposefully not published as RFCs, such as
they are redundant to (or actively oppose) an existing standards-track
RFC, they are considered by a WG that is directly germane to the draft
and the WG decides that the draft should not become a WG work item, or
the IESG or RFC editor has previously reviewed the draft and decided
that it does not have minimal quality to be published (such as a
series of drafts I recall from the past on number theory).

So in the general case, such a proposal would require some amount of
good-faith historical discovery of why the draft was never published
in the first place.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list