[rfc-i] Categories of references

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu Oct 2 08:35:35 PDT 2014

On 10/2/2014 2:06 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I just reviewed another draft that, once RFC, will have the same I problem I have previously introduced into other RFCs:
> References to documents that are only there for a historical record (or for acknowledgments).
> As in: “This document was motivated by the problem statement in the unimplementable proposal [I-D.bozo-xwg-wrong-approach], but turned everything upside down and made it work."
> Right now, references are either normative or informative.
> Clearly, these historical references are not normative.
> But mixing them into the informative references is confusing:
> As an implementer, I would expect an informative reference to
> provide
> additional information about the present specification, not about
> historical paths not taken.


Informative references include everything - past experience, paths not
taken, and anything that isn't germane to the specification - often
mixed in a single document.

E.g., where would you put Jacobson's 88 paper? Some is active, some is
past, etc.

I don't see a reason to try to differentiate between "currently active"
and "archival" for information.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list