Re: [rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-06-16 20:06, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> ...
>> This creates a special case for these entries, which I believe is a
>> bad thing.
> 
> I don't think it is a special case, per se. I think this is the case of
> how to handle sub-series. They are a slightly different beast than just
> straight RFCs.
> ...

In the optimal case, we can define something that is not restricted to 
IETF document series...

>>>> (3) What if the spec prose actually wants to refer to one of the
>>>> documents in the document set?
>>>
>>> They they shouldn't refer to the subseries; they should just reference
>>> the individual RFC. If they want to do both (reference the subseries and
>>> later specifically reference an RFC within that subseries) then I think
>>> we're going to have a discussion with the author to figure out what
>>> exactly they are trying to do. Are they trying to point someone to
>>> whatever the current standard or best practice is, or are they trying to
>>> point to a snapshot in time? Both are perfectly reasonable things to do,
>>> and we'd adjust the references accordingly.
>>
>> Which doesn't answer the case what to do when both is happening.
>> Leaving this undefined until it happens is just asking for trouble.
> 
> So, you're asking about when someone wants to refer to the current
> documents in the subseries, AND refer to a specific RFC that happens to
> be in the subseries at the time of publication? I don't see anything
> preventing that, though it likely will result in a conversation between
> the authors and RPC to make sure the intent is clear.

Right now, it will fail because the anchor elements would be in conflict.

Best regards, Julian


_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest