[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Thu Oct 16 17:25:29 PDT 2008

Joe Touch wrote:
> > 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.
Well, "RFC" has name recognition among a wider public, where it more or
less means "a document published by IETF" (even if that's not quite true
in practice).  And at least the spirit of "request for comments" is (or
should) still be in place - it should in principle be possible to
provide feedback for any RFC, especially for the sake of reporting
errata, ambiguities, or operational problems.  So I could see a
reluctance to change it. 

"Internet-draft" seems fine as a term of art that we mostly use among
> None have anything to do with the issue of citing expired, unpublished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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list