IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Citing internet drafts

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 03 September 2019 15:19 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 BDC79120046 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 V9-pvBzQruo9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:25 -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 01AE1120019 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CDFB80ED1; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:04 -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 5C717B80ED1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 Fvu2XJ-3sc5r for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C500DB80ECE for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCCB9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46N9bX29bmzyNX; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:19:20 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <f9792cff-da1c-a779-629b-cd8b1480e63c@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 17:19:19 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 589216757.962757-60665d1f2a9206bc87dbc56d51b827fc
Message-Id: <7B5B8AF8-FD1E-4B83-8ABC-57F377879E88@tzi.org>
References: <9dca07bd-293c-7f1e-0cbc-c0a9907d09c2@gmx.de> <f9792cff-da1c-a779-629b-cd8b1480e63c@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Citing internet drafts
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
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 Sep 3, 2019, at 17:01, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> IIUC the restriction that references to drafts must be informational only applies to *RFC*s? It is important that *drafts* be able to normatively reference other drafts as they progress in parallel, with the limitation that they will be forced to progress together, at which point they will become references to RFCs. Right?

Certainly.

(RFC 7322 is the “RFC style guide”. It would be useful to have an “I-D style guide” that points out what an I-D should do to painlessly become an RFC later.  Your point is an example for that.)

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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