[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 28 15:03:26 PDT 2015


On May 28, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 29/05/2015 06:54, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:08:43PM -0400, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> As far as I recollect, we didn't use "Internet Draft" in the
>>> reference, so this isn't a change.
>> 
>> Also, since they're supposed to be at least in theory temporary
>> documents that don't persist, they can't actually be thought of as a
>> document series.
> 
> That's right. In fact, "work in progress" is itself anomalous when citing
> ancient drafts that are no longer in progress; I suggested "working draft"
> a few years ago.

As much as Heather might hate this, I think this topic is a good enough reason to open up this particular worm can again. We know the "in theory" is as wrong as many of our old theories, and maybe we should address reality.

Current:

[RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
            Work in Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01,
            June 2013.

Proposal:

[RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
            Internet-Draft draft-flanagan-style-01,
            June 2013,
            <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-style-01>.


This proposed style matches that which is in use for RFCs:

[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange
          Protocol Core", RFC 3080, March 2001,
          <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3080>.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list