Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for explaining this perception.

The "citable specification" does not have to be an RFC - any document, e.g., on 
the web would do (though I tend to remind registrants that that internet drafts 
time out after 6 months).

So it seems the problem is with interpretation of "citable specification".  It 
was not intended to be restricted to "formally citable specifications" or 
suchlike, just something that could be referenced and retrieved by anyone.

This should be easily fixable.  Or is there a deeper problem?

#g
--

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> I keep wondering why RFC3864 [1] isn't more visible in this discussion:  
>> provisional registration is cheap and easy.  Where's the problem here 
>> that I'm not seeing?
>>
>> [[
>>    The main requirements for a header field to be included in the
>>    provisional repository are that it MUST have a citable specification,
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> People have come to think that getting an RFC actually published is
> hard, probably because we have made it hard.  For people who aren't
> used to the IETF, simply publishing something here is like being
> nibbled to death by ducks.
> 
> Note that I-Ds aren't citable specifications, according to the process
> rules.
> 
> A
>