Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 09 December 2014 16:45 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51AC1A8794 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:45:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipWFfxERGYXS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBFD41A896A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB9GjiPw002630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:45:47 -0800
Message-ID: <54872728.5050903@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:45:28 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20
References: <20141209163604.11502.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20141209163604.11502.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uUCnN7m9qWs5IkRil9zR3dGu1rA
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:45:50 -0000
On 12/9/2014 8:36 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, there has _never_ been a >>> >> requirement that cited documents be available online, and >>> >> especially that authoritative copies be available online. >> > >> >But perhaps there should be one as to new RFCs. > That means nobody can cite a printed book, or an article from an ACM > or IEEE journal. (To the extent the latter two are online, they're > PDFs behind a paywall.) > > This seems to me to be making rules for the sake of making rules, not > because there is a problem that needs to be solved. Well, there is certainly a higher barrier to access for a paper document or one behind a paywall than there is for something that is only one click away. It's probably reasonable that we document a preference that a 'direct' link be available, rather than that it be required. This doesn't mean refraining from references to paper or paywall docs, but that we'd like a direct link to be included. Interestingly, this issue is the other side of our preference /not/ to cite ephemeral web pages... So I think this reduces to a combined preference about references: 1. A reference needs to be to a stable, published copy that is likely to be available long term. 2. It is preferred that the citation include an online, direct reference, independent of the 'primary' publication vehicle for the document. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-tex… Black, David
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Barry Leiba
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John Levine
- Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir re… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Dave Cridland
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Barry Leiba
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Carsten Bormann
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- Re: Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- RE: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status of … Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status… manning bill
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John Levine
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Dave Crocker
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Julian Reschke
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin