[rfc-i] Proposal for v3 to simplify most references
nico at cryptonector.com
Sun Feb 9 14:39:03 PST 2014
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2014, at 9:20 PM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> If that's in some RFC published today, and in a couple of years, we
>> publish RFC 10979 that updates the IPR rules and becomes the new BCP79,
>> what will people get when they render the XML?
>> This isn't an insoluble problem, but if the XML is definititive, even
>> the current situation implicitly depends on the entries in the
>> citation libraries never changing.
> Hrm, good call. It works for BCPs that have changed, but not ones that will change.
> So, in the proposal I sent, make the "expanded" attribute mandatory for "bcp" and "std".
When formatting an RFC. For an I-D it makes no real difference. If
you want ease of use, why make the I-D author look up the RFC number
(and then, when the BCP is changed to refer to a newer RFC, the I-D
author will get nits about it).
On the whole, I think a notion of a) reference libraries, b) standard
reference libraries with standard names in it, c) the ability to
assign vanity names to anchor for use intra-document, and d) the
ability to assign vanity names for what should appear in [brackets] in
the rendered text... will be very welcome.
<library name="my-lib" ref="URI to my reference library">
<reference library="RFC-Editor" ref="RFCxxxx" anchor="foo"
More information about the rfc-interest