Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 07 May 2013 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7284E11E80A4 for <>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.943
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7xUttLsQQ4Cj for <>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C8E11E80A6 for <>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hv10so1101934vcb.39 for <>; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kw+HXwp+S3cT9bZqIrPKTHV2eDiX4gF4FW83zcFrI3g=; b=qL2iC2MDl+Mz0KWcKTnsifaDv4PBo4WMKZ8wEult5Ju0rbL2N+gDhELXB2iZqKdnhL VeTbUlutVzduLK00GG+LFYPoYRXgznMuTKDfaa7Nva9QQIyKJv26fhHOWdI3N9+4ais7 p5P4bsHrCFrm1EP7DIIHRYf52v7FEUqaNM0zClalRkLzkDAADBOH5YET7WVTPftmVqC5 zrOL47FtEUTT/2v2A7OtEINb8trZIlDJv9I/UN6JEGoeXtSxsgIz2iyxHjo8D5ttogke sgWY6YFXkD1u1xmqAGs8rWbo14bxmH1aLeFNrQqJFzke7VhbSWARYEWrrNdTBxH82KDe Y3Mg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id vu10mr2795958veb.27.1367968474499; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 19:14:34 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: QhQOgOeiHRzimsIvLZlSTAxKWEc
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:14:40 -0000

>> 2. Have I told you how unhappy I am with the citation style you use?
> Not until now!
>> It's generally not something I'm willing to argue about, preferring to
>> defer to the authors' style of citations

OK, so let me be clear.  Let's please not discuss this further in this
thread, though; if we want to pursue it, let's do it in a separate
thread, or, even better, on the rfc-interest list.

I prefer for citations to be maximally useful, without requiring the
reader to go to the bottom of the document and look at the references
for everything.  That means that the style "[AR-ORIG]" is truly
sub-optimal, because it gives *no* useful information until it's been
looked up at least once.  It also means that "[RFC5451]", by itself,
isn't great either, because, while it tells you where to find the
cited document, it doesn't tell you what it is.  Consider these:

1. "According to [RFC5321], the MAIL FROM command <...etc...>"

2. "According to [SMTP], the MAIL FROM command <...etc...>"

3. "According to SMTP [RFC5321], the MAIL FROM command <...etc...>"

4. "According to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [RFC5321], the
MAIL FROM command <...etc...>"

In cases (1) and (2), you're requiring the reader to know what RFC
5321 or "SMTP" are, or forcing them to go look up the reference.  In
cases 3 and 4, you give more information: you're citing *both* SMTP
and RFC 5321, and it's much more likely that a reader will know what's
being cited without having to look at the reference.

For citations to this document (well, or the original version, for
now) from elsewhere, one might say something like this:

"The description of the Message Authentication Status header field
[RFC5451], specifies that <...etc...>"

... which seems far superior to citations that simply use bare
"[RFC5451]" or something like "[AUTH-STAT]".