IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 15 June 2017 00:03 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 0418A127F0E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 SOFN8dJZW_QZ for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:29 -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 36825126D85 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E47B80DE1; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:15 -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 AA581B80DE1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:13 -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=gmail.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 upGK_AEwY-0U for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0809DB80DE0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f185so6966616pgc.0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ivvensT50btlgco3U9/gGzQyn7jQIqVCG5V/mKBOABY=; b=AyQWs+wau+gVwNi7zRtWdcFM5BZwiFqfqfOpm1sPx8Sw/Ev0dvMTQttIg//8WDqfLx Smdlg7QD4/g5US3Jwa/4Mn7Ni3kxa8B2XgAskbyRQzASYjcHNDFBHVY0xc5JaAuO23/Q fcUAAvCrrTvcWSqtpToYWsbjD9zMef+pqJZNLSX/rcWoJSDijwb1amrxkJF2TSsSC/Cn PZ1c3AsCisBYUtDFCRfjShXH/mlZThR+1FaPNNSBnEDzsUPpwAHdBAwiYB/mOiL4QOV4 oEkXIQHgJLo6Ef64ZRsynX3HRuPLY0KRmHfIo2zC822VcdSFKahjflNXUaMraK0NHX35 EsBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ivvensT50btlgco3U9/gGzQyn7jQIqVCG5V/mKBOABY=; b=anpGmGDBjHLDVR7Pj5lysOWEr4Lbj6Dq/7emCvONjCTWbum9ZRDIKLiV4iAJH+qmxM ZJerNu4XaqkQx8C5HAeBCSEncd5kQl6lkc9Ob49whDYgFr6LYesdPPEqww5S8ktnYVfY iznhQy1SIu2KxF2i9JoLMqxtSjrc4dLKoJ7UStzEmbbZPPSHdK2T5B09HM4j2SLW6Hst p+AJM/qgKeZ1lmnBawMH1NTuwfkgOpFfI4+ga7jDFIQf9vok1NPuXvd9+ztvW1zhVGzb SOCLmJzFVahXbJqmxYWo/xze4GNMnQFCicr1t9+qN75OmKoMIUcUFkSXjaN3ajBnRjal pyBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwgE0lbvmjfby6Qc0SArmilpPfpXcDt9G4yJ4KPlXIbfBVHNwN4 /U2FAsV8oLNU5aJl
X-Received: by 10.84.133.100 with SMTP id 91mr2918959plf.106.1497485003846; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.126.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y2sm91026pgy.60.2017.06.14.17.03.22 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: 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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <0c97b073-80ca-9dd8-3f3e-30cc874a2a9d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:03:26 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27887A7B-DD5A-4D10-B307-44AD342B4F74@tzi.org>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

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.

   Brian

> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> (*) “historical" as in documented, archival, chronicled, not “historic" as in significant, notable, momentous, consequential, memorable, unforgettable, remarkable; famous, famed, celebrated, renowned, legendary; landmark, sensational, groundbreaking, epoch-making, earth-shattering.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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