IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 April 2018 22:03 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 BA94A12D80E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 WPakqPtJkd4A for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:16 -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 3034212D77C for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F21AB8240A; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:14 -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 B8E6AB8240A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:12 -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 n_Sw2qzc7u1p for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E39B82409 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3CM3BhX080900 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:03:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <7adbf2cd-872c-2ebc-79d5-259c57bcc471@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:03:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: [rfc-i] Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

RFC 2026 (BCP 9) currently has the following text regarding the phrasing 
that is to be used when referring to internet drafts:


    Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
    that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
    phrase "Work in Progress"  without referencing an Internet-Draft.
    This may also be done in a standards track document itself  as long
    as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
    complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
    the "Work in Progress".
  

In practice, not all internet drafts are still "in progress," although 
there may still be value in referring to their contents. At the request 
of the RFC Editor, I have put together a very small document that amends 
RFC 2026 to allow referring to such documents using the more accurate 
term "Internet Draft."

Please see <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-id-cite-00>, and 
provide feedback on this mailing list. Thanks!

/a

_______________________________________________
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