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

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun May 31 21:20:00 PDT 2015


Being able to use a draft name without number in another draft would 
indeed make things simpler, and I would welcome it.

Also, besides the case where the reference is intended to go to the 
latest version, there may be cases where the reference is intended to go 
to the draft in its entirety, i.e. all the individual numbers. An 
example could be a design rationale section in an RFC that mentions 
other, ultimately not adopted approaches. If there are IDs for the other 
approaches, the draft number may not matter much because the overall 
approach, not a specific version, was rejected.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2015/05/30 02:49, Joe Touch wrote:
> +1
>
> In fact, it might even be useful to allow a note like "(latest
> version)", in which case the exact current filename could always be used.
>
> Joe
>
> On 5/29/2015 8:09 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I recommend changing the text to:
>>
>>     It is acceptable to reference an Internet-Draft in another Internet-
>>     Draft or RFC.  >>>In an RFC,<<< such a reference must be to a specific edition of an
>>     Internet-Draft by indicating its full filename, such as "draft-ietf- <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-somewg-someprotocol-03>
>>     somewg-someprotocol-03 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-somewg-someprotocol-03>".
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> .
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list