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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

The idea of lifting these sorts of things out of the
rather-hard-to-change place they exist (BCPs) and into the style guide
or locations more amenable to change is an improvement.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I strongly support fixing this issue. But...
>
>>    Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
>>    that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
>>    phrase "Internet Draft" 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 "Internet Draft".
>
> This doesn't cover all cases of "work in progress", unfortunately. Some of
> the cases it doesn't cover are
> a) A standards-track specification that is work in progress in another SDO.
> b) A non-standards-track I-D of any kind, which is probably the
> most common case today of "work in progress" citations.
> c) Any other case where "work in progress" is in fact applicable.
> Clearly, documents that are not I-Ds but are factually work in
> progress should be cited as such.
>
> Also, the first sentence doesn't need the phrase "without referencing an
> Internet-Draft", which to my mind makes the sentence illogical.
>
> I have an alternative suggestion. Leave the details to the RFC Editor
> style guide. Then the new text only needs to say:
>
>    Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
>    that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC.  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.
>
> (A more radical suggestion is to delete the paragraph completely.
> I'm not sure we'd lose much.)
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 13/04/2018 10:03, Adam Roach wrote:
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest