[rfc-i] Fwd: citing historic internet drafts

RFC Editor rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Tue Oct 21 13:56:36 PDT 2008

FYI: Forwarding this thread with Julian's permission.

----- Forwarded message from Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU> -----

From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: [rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:24:07 -0700
To: rfc-ed at ISI.EDU

Begin forwarded message:

>From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
>Date: October 19, 2008 4:57:07 AM PDT
>To: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts
>I would be totally grateful if you could give assistance in finding  
>the right text for these two references that both follows the  
>current rules, but also includes the information I'd like to  
>provide (in particular, containing a URL to an archived copy).
>Best regards,
>PS: if you do, feel free to follow-up on the list...
>Julian Reschke wrote:
>>OK, so let's have a look at the two informative ID references I'm  
>>currently struggling with (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- 
>>    [DASLREQ]  Davis, J., Reddy, S., and J. Slein, "Requirements  
>>for DAV
>>               Searching and Locating", February 1999, <http://
>>               www.webdav.org/dasl/requirements/
>>               draft-dasl-requirements-01.html>.
>>               This is an updated version of the Internet Draft
>>               "draft-ietf-dasl-requirements-00", but obviously  
>>never was
>>               submitted to the IETF.
>>(note that this very text passed IETF last call *and* was approved  
>>by the IESG...)
>>- it's over 9 years old
>>- it's an informative reference
>>- it does not claim that it is an Internet Draft at all
>>- it provides a URL on www.webdav.org, which is the most stable  
>>place I can think of for WebDAV stuff
>>- it explains in an annotation how that document actually differs  
>>from a previous draft, but does not cite that one
>>- publishing this as historic RFC may be possible, but requires  
>>first a ton of updates (it has been written when the rules were  
>>different), and would also require negotiation with the original  
>>So why was this rejected by the RFC-Editor? Because it contains  
>>the term "draft"???
>>The other one is:
>>    [DASL]     Reddy, S., Lowry, D., Reddy, S., Henderson, R.,  
>>Davis, J.,
>>               and A. Babich, "DAV Searching & Locating",
>>               draft-ietf-dasl-protocol-00 (work in progress),  
>>July 1999.
>>In this case the approved ID actually *does* use the standard  
>>format (using "work in progress"), as I missed the problem.
>>This is another case of a draft that clearly is not work in  
>>progress: the spec that references it actually is a successor of  
>>it, and it is only cited in an attempt of explaining the history  
>>of the spec.
>>I think the best way *for the reader* would be to state:
>>- yes, this was an I-D, and provide the exact name,
>>- do not claim it is work in progress, but state that it was  
>>- provide a stable URL to an archived version.
>>Such as:
>>    [DASL]     Reddy, S., Lowry, D., Reddy, S., Henderson, R.,  
>>Davis, J.,
>>               and A. Babich, "DAV Searching & Locating",
>>               draft-ietf-dasl-protocol-00 (abandoned), July 1999.
>>               Copy available from <...>
>>Best regards, Julian

----- End forwarded message -----

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list