IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 16 June 2017 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BC0128A32 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=augustcellars.com
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 ggJtbnmi01zb for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C1A1200C1 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A98B80EB0; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB2CB80EAE; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=augustcellars.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dJlvtECE610; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB16DB80EAD; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=augustcellars.com; s=winery; c=simple/simple; t=1497638448; h=from:subject:to:date:message-id; bh=jG7xoFAXRHgGXj0/KzBY7YNFly+5Bp/pZMZWBA4oEyc=; b=FVjqoF+HrRHLg5KHn2nvo0Kei+uxXdWvK/xa8ZjqX82Ax55ysxye6M2nSid++SclFzX6EeeAzA3 cheHcoFb1fuSA6EMBIpxBvIjmB79ZbAerwDfmaV09bYL/t2SgXmaarU9jlpzwHdVpmCDEGgAgMQAv 7FragGXpFSNICIIkAMXiBX7AeSHN9jV7wDZKw3YUwxs4gE8AJ3ZMtHC89eK4Z75HN7nluCKHZ7FSS NZztiof97YToz0IN7nVq6rf6DzU95O+4NLfC88RHLICSpgbQnx1w6UJy89tf+EgH5RkXlvEpepHBB A3fTJWzp+qX7dohhZAQh1wfR9gA7TFnbZ/oQ==
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) by mail4.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:47 -0700
Received: from Hebrews (24.21.96.37) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:46 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)'" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <148916689952.6827.6792653811413720687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <383fa41c-e289-8045-7c1f-fcdcd8cc8445@rfc-editor.org> <eca0f643-0e06-0e9e-d972-47b76d5ef1bb@gmx.de> <1cd9c597-f945-6b22-d0fb-8623897b678d@gmx.de> <eff80e48-ff88-0516-9a46-072e88be3164@rfc-editor.org> <27887A7B-DD5A-4D10-B307-44AD342B4F74@tzi.org> <0c97b073-80ca-9dd8-3f3e-30cc874a2a9d@gmail.com> <bf937f01-ee6e-fd0e-1e58-1917ca786129@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <bf937f01-ee6e-fd0e-1e58-1917ca786129@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:40:44 -0700
Message-ID: <000001d2e6d0$11d60370$35820a50$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJyL2KBMgKeorNN77s/30z4UzEkWAJHU0twAjQPGnQBoaw/IQIFb40AA4D5RtwCt8bDygG6527foGiP/XA=
X-Originating-IP: [24.21.96.37]
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:19 AM
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

On 6/14/17 5:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14/06/2017 20:37, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 23:02, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can see a situation, in a purely historic context, where this 
>>> might be unnecessary.
>>
>> (Ceterum censeo:)
>>
>> I believe it would be a good thing to clearly identify “historical”(*) references (as in: here you can find out how this document came to be the way it is) as a separate class from other “informative” (as in: here is more information that helps in processing the technical content of this document) ones.
>>
>> The rule being discussed would then apply to informative, not to historical, references.
> 
> This triggers one of my hobby-horses, I'm afraid.
> 
> If I refer to an I-D because it's useful reading but not yet published, I'm happy with it being tagged as "Work in progress". A smart reader may even have the idea to look for a corresponding RFC.
> 
> If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date). Calling it "Work in progress" is either inappropriate or simply untrue.
> 
> Today we have no metadata to separate the two cases.
> 

Who would make the call as to whether an I-D is a work in progress or a [stale|historic|overtaken by events|your favorite term here] I-D? It's not a simple case of time, and the author of the I-D being referenced might have a difference of opinion than the author doing the referencing.

[JLS] However, there are some easy cases.  For example any document which has had a replacement document is definitely no longer a WIP.

Jim


-Heather
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email