[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Wed Mar 26 14:35:22 PDT 2014

On 3/26/2014 2:24 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> I think this is reasonable; I will discuss with my co-author.  Any
> thoughts on guidance for informative references?  or are you in (I think
> it was Ted's) camp re: trust the author?

Well, I kept to 'normative' refs intentionally, because I think the 
nature of the concern for stability of those references is much clearer. 
  So we might be able to lock down that specific issue within bounded time.

Informative references can be stickier, IMO.  Some refs really are 
foundational and others are mere seasoning.  The former benefit from 
more stability, but need the requirement be as strict as normative?  Mumble.

I could formulate arguments I'd find credible for many different 
positions about this.  And that degree of inherent ambiguity makes me 
think that the right answer is to have the RFC Editor retain control 
over criteria for Informative references, so that there is a single, 
presumably-coherent, set of rules across all the streams for them.

In other words, I'm not seeing a compelling need to delegate the rules 
for Informative Refs, and I do see the benefit of some simplification.

None of which proposes specific rules, as you will no doubt have noticed...

>> This topic is increasingly looking like "here be dragons",
> Have we had a topic over the last two weeks that didn't introduce
> dragons with sharp, pointy teeth?

I said nothing about the teeth...  FWIW, was mostly thinking of 
associated fire and burning, more than crunching and tearing.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list