[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 16 16:53:01 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Micah Cowan wrote:
> Bob Braden wrote:
>> Frankly, it does not seem to be an issue that warrants all this much
>> discussion.  In any case, I would observe that we have been using the
>> phrase "work in progress", whatever its merits, for some 20 years, and
>> if we decide to change it, we had better make sure we will still be
>> happy with it 20 years from now.
> For that matter, hasn't "RFC" itself been rather a misnomer for some
> time now? :)

That's the point, IMO.

Yes, we have 'terms of art':
	Internet Draft
	work in progress
	Request for Comments

None of these mean what they ought to. All would be useful to revise.
None have anything to do with the issue of citing expired, unpublished
work. That ought to be possible - again, for *credit* purposes only -
the same way we can cite web pages (which are, IMO, just as ephemeral as
I-Ds, if not moreso), emails, or other correspondence not published in a
public, archival forum.

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list