[rfc-i] For v3: Better identification for multi-document sets

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Sun Dec 29 12:10:24 PST 2013

On Sunday, December 29, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2013-12-28 22:28, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > >
> > > Another issue that needs to be considered is the question of recursion.
> > > Should I be able to do
> > >
> > > <reference anchor="Keywords">
> > >    <reference anchor="BCPXXXX">
> > >      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
> >
> > It's an interesting thought; do we have a use case?
> Part of this is a question of the best way of addressing things like the
> and BCP references.  If there is an easy inclusion mechanism, it might be
> better to include the RFC indirectly rather than directly.  This makes it
> easier to include only the leaf reference.   This also makes it easier to
> do
> references as documents change over time in some respects.  If I do the
> xref
> to RFC2119 rather than to BCPXXXX then I would potentially get a different
> tag and reference if the BCP is updated to point to a new document.  I
> would
> then be able to make a decision later about what I am referencing.

+1.  To me this seems like good design.  It allows for vanity reference
naming and reference cluster naming both in the same and very natural
way (though it doesn't solve the 3GPP reference naming problem) while also
allowing specific xrefs to be to individual references in a cluster, or
even sub-clusters.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20131229/351e6ad5/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list