Re: [rfc-i] Citing internet drafts

fwiw - referring to an ID with a particular version number does not have to use the “work in progress” 
language - the purpose of the “work in progress’ tag was to ensure that no one thought that the 
ID the reader of an RFC found had any relationship to the ID that was current at the time of the RFC
publication

Scott

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 3:38 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On 02.09.2019 15:37, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> I just saw
>>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/changeset/3263>, which
>>> in turn mentions draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.
>>> 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03#section-4.8.6.4>
>>> says:
>>> 
>>>> 4.8.6.4.  Referencing Internet-Drafts
>>>> 
>>>>    References to Internet Drafts may only appear as informative
>>>>    references.  Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
>>>>    in a short time frame, references must include the posting date
>>>>    (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
>>>>    version number), and the phrase "Internet Draft".  Authors may
>>>>    reference multiple versions of an I-D.  If the referenced I-D was
>>>>    also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
>>>> 
>>>>    [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and
>>>>    First initial.  Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Internet
>>>>    Draft, draft-string-NN, Month Year.
>>>> 
>>>>    Example:
>>>> 
>>>>    [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S.  Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Internet
>>>>    Draft, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013.
>>> 
>>> This is a change from 7322, which had
>>> (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.4>):
>>> 
>>>> 4.8.6.4.  Referencing Internet-Drafts
>>>> 
>>>>    References to Internet-Drafts may only appear as informative
>>>>    references.  Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
>>>>    in a short time frame, references must include the posting date
>>>>    (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
>>>>    version number), and the phrase "Work in Progress".  Authors may
>>>>    reference multiple versions of an I-D.  If the referenced I-D was
>>>>    also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
>>>> 
>>>>       [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
>>>>                       and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if
>>>>                       applicable), "I-D Title", Work in Progress,
>>>>                       draft-string-NN, Month Year.
>>>> 
>>>>      Example:
>>>> 
>>>>       [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
>>>>                   Work in Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01,
>>>>                   June 2013.
>>> 
>>> I personally find this an improvement, but two questions come to mind:
>>> 
>>> 1.) When is this change supposed to go in effect?
>>> 
>>> 2.) Isn't this in conflict with today's Internet Draft boilerplate, wich
>>> clearly says: 'It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>>> material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."'. Is that
>>> clause going to change as well?
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> Furthermore:
>> 
>>>>>   [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S.  Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Internet
>>>>>   Draft, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013.
>> 
>> This introduces yet another special case. Why is there a comma when the
>> document series is "Internet Draft", and otherwise not?
>> 
>> Heather? Any feedback?
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> This is one of those areas I’ve bumped into in the past, and promptly forgot because it doesn’t make sense to me (but it is the rules, and not about me, so…)
> 
> We are required to refer to all Internet-Drafts as “work in progress” until such time as the IETF provides an update to RFC 2026. RFC 7322 and its successors cannot do that update - wrong stream, wrong track. So, my guidance in 7322bis is flat out wrong and will have to be rewritten. Sandy, Alice, Henrik, and I are discussing a proposal around what will work now that allows a proper series name AND supports the requisite “work in progress” using the existing v3 vocabulary.
> 
> -Heather
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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