Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 15 June 2017 18:38 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 C024A1200FC for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 X8MqPGOM3gn6 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:55 -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 CBBA71286B1 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761A3B814C2; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:41 -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 4971CB814C2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 f2w75YDjq7yz for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22e.google.com (mail-it0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2570B814C1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id b205so1245276itg.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=0KVN1lxlpwpALqqYvxFIOV83ATjVqgxBlFCgKRGt9kQ=; b=DygxN1I1IK1QLqPHxlcQmhf3KMXrrzRZz7P/+zkFLnfarEc8lk4AKUWg0kYnRuHfox I/ZQ3KVCmFaar/aVcaBMyftXSZKcibSs14pcfaKg4bcYUTuZAP2FKAwLUL0o0SOwmK1Z /i4nkz593GCm4F1O1b9hmWexw+CoVNI0ONk/vGGQRKH7YmH90a2l5LFcmF5xbmF+f4Gh ppI3g1yyqlP9PnmxNtIR8xag4OM2FYLUiYLXs/Nh0izu4XxXIz90RogU4iL16qErai8u wP1wohQWMsjDUedzeaZ7FLE/GUZPkUa9oTYvHPvPPKgZJfbigCtRx/FujXUKcDz2oqI7 CAhw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=0KVN1lxlpwpALqqYvxFIOV83ATjVqgxBlFCgKRGt9kQ=; b=oIVrzGfjYYUVjrcJW/nh0ImHjL1eiaMzuFVWsJ8A5EgWJTqlobKMARW4mReKJAW67o 1AwBlgRK9175ul2jkT+gRuDQE53fixana2fpryz3bFwMBUVeEfEf6deiskIg/YzmXP7h CQzpNnaxF75tFZ1T0bTZDGoH5Rq0SXnCkSDjnxTRM86j4/1l+dbEJyg1jwZowH7YjkQW ffAWxMMSgTfYHq40RLGkf93HBgx+9zD7uAbDKVLpdDUF+4He1tK9NOmFSmUh1IQfzYva 94cNY2wc+iiC9phsJa92+R05nl6BTsvA3AmMH70RnG+86D0ro6biXoxbYMp/s1bM/8mC YXrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyt/Pex0gNs7GzE6dboY0/d4Uf1I2GkJ9tnQT1Y751CzPZEo/vG qlTTna2xTL7O8g==
X-Received: by 10.36.125.208 with SMTP id b199mr6660252itc.87.1497551930611; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i73sm439628ioi.30.2017.06.15.11.38.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <030DC553-3338-476F-A077-529F0193BEF1@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <e86fff04-6fa6-8f32-7ee6-cf74873576ff@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <148916689952.6827.6792653811413720687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <383fa41c-e289-8045-7c1f-fcdcd8cc8445@rfc-editor.org> <eca0f643-0e06-0e9e-d972-47b76d5ef1bb@gmx.de> <1cd9c597-f945-6b22-d0fb-8623897b678d@gmx.de> <eff80e48-ff88-0516-9a46-072e88be3164@rfc-editor.org> <27887A7B-DD5A-4D10-B307-44AD342B4F74@tzi.org> <0c97b073-80ca-9dd8-3f3e-30cc874a2a9d@gmail.com> <e86fff04-6fa6-8f32-7ee6-cf74873576ff@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9161970423426587846=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2017-06-15 02:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> ...
>> This triggers one of my hobby-horses, I'm afraid.
>> If I refer to an I-D because it's useful reading but not yet published, I'm happy with it being tagged as "Work in progress". A smart reader may even have the idea to look for a corresponding RFC.
>> If I refer to an I-D because it has historical value, I would prefer it to be tagged as "Unpublished draft" and have an exact version number (and date). Calling it "Work in progress" is either inappropriate or simply untrue.
>> Today we have no metadata to separate the two cases.
>> ...
> 
> +1
> 

I tend to agree as well.  Though I am not sure “unpublished draft” is exactly right since the draft is available online.  We treat Internet Drafts as temporary, and at the same time permanent.  Starting to seem more like the later.

Why don’t we include a link to the Internet Draft in the reference like we do for RFCs?

Thanks,
Bob


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