Re: [rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs

"Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 16 June 2017 18:54 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 81D8912EBAE for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 pFWVwYLNZSFL for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:54:11 -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 1812C127863 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1617B8010F; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:54 -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 E4A0AB8010F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:53 -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 c3Km1B8Wnj2q for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17995B800E6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1101CA533; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFnYelhJiT43; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (c-50-159-75-65.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [50.159.75.65]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC30F1CA532; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <148916689952.6827.6792653811413720687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <383fa41c-e289-8045-7c1f-fcdcd8cc8445@rfc-editor.org> <95fdafee-d05c-ab6a-0e15-fc6780f0f909@gmx.de> <b884949b-a6cf-3dcd-0daa-ab3fb6f93ae5@rfc-editor.org> <6b70c6d8-4b82-6198-69a8-89a8fb14b77d@gmx.de> <60634b87-fe8a-1081-54e2-db0636efe4d1@rfc-editor.org> <7c0b6cff-4968-945a-68fb-b12e52ede60f@gmx.de>
From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <efaf855e-fe0b-7cf5-13c3-fb5c49643116@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:54:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7c0b6cff-4968-945a-68fb-b12e52ede60f@gmx.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referencing STDs and BCPs
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 6/16/17 11:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

How? The anchor element can (should!) be unique, differentiating between
a reference to STD### versus a reference to RFC####.

(I hate that feeling that I must be missing something obvious.)

-Heather




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