[rfc-i] Updating one paragraph of RFC 2026 to reflect current practice

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 29 10:47:19 PDT 2015



On 5/29/2015 1:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:19:03PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> This is short and to the point. If the community agrees, we can probably get this done easily.
>>
> 
> I do not agree.  The reason I don't is because an I-D that doesn't
> result in an RFC is, IMO, still a work in progress;

That was true before the ISOC provided an open archive of them:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/old-ids-by-date.html

(no, I don't count archives by third parties that violated pre-97 copyright)

I agree these aren't complete works, but we can't continue to sit on all
sides of the issue:

	- they're archived and openly accessible
		largely to provide a resource for patent issues, AFAICT

	- we cite them quite frequently
		- citing to give credit for an idea is reasonable
		even if they were ephemeral

		- but we typically also cite them for tech content,
		even if not normatively

	- they're not supposed to be cited
		as noted in the boilerplate and on the main pages

We also can't expect the RFC Editor to properly cite them in ways that
are inconsistent with the boilerplate either.

It's time our words matched our actions.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list