[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu May 28 16:48:23 PDT 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 5/28/15 6:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/28/2015 3:03 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On May 28, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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>.
> 
> I agree. Given that I-Ds are no longer ephemeral as once intended 
> anyway, this should also mean updating the I-D boilerplate:
> 
> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
> months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
> documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
> as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
> progress."
> 
> That last sentence should be revised to say that I-Ds should be
> cited by including their date and version number, and omit the
> rest.
> 

I have no moral objection to changing this. It's more a procedural
issue. That language ("work in progress") is defined by RFC 2026. My
understanding is that to change that language means opening up 2026,
which has to be done via a standards-track document (informational
doesn't cut it, and therefore a style guide isn't the place to do it).
I think that is more appropriate to come out of the community, not
from the RFC Editor.

Heather
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVZ6lHAAoJEER/xjINbZoGToMH/Rhs+fusyk0+Q3dxqZ1xAdnq
YWGJ7RdWaudv6NUjOr1ljg87/9B9tcE45Vxxy5/5a5n7VxZG1OTWZkYzrOeLpE2E
ZRMtRwgZXEgp+llgtIePmTEJnZK6aSVHhoQ7J+QGyPXb76gdpCq5/wT7p96eDOSZ
USS1MFip/My/h8F4yLE3AcizxbqBroHyFPordvj65Mj4fcKi+mVVTEVhVFWfJkwK
9N1AWTzXoA86rGEu6JEY0DX/70/26O7ZLbUWVhsw2hkQ/4vmLowkcRQkFaMz1KOy
umr6iZtEX2hdmw1UDBEy7r/JcAnGdWtKi4JGeWdyidOSRUi9OoKBp/zt/hgDMpY=
=yYH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list