Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc online: references to I-Ds and associated dates

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, July 12, 2019 01:58 +0200 Carsten Bormann
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
>               Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen,
> T., Hui, J.,               Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K.,
> Struik, R., and J.               Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
> Protocol for Low power and               Lossy Networks",
> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19 (work in               progress), March
> 2011.
> 
> The date is a red herring.  Dates in RFC references are always
> Month-Year. As was noted, adding a day doesn't help with
> frequently respun I-Ds. I think that's why the draft number
> is in the bibxml.

Brian may have a different answer for his document, but ...

* Historically, dates in RFC references are not "always"
Month-Year.  For a long time, the custom was to show April 1
RFCs with the day for reasons that are probably obvious.   If
that custom has lapsed (and it apparently has) it is a loss in
information for the RFC Series.

* As I said earlier, my concern is about I-Ds referencing I-Ds.
These are not RFC references.  And, while I'll stipulate that
draft version/sequence numbers are more precise than dates, I
can think of any number of reasons why an exact date may convey
useful information.

* While I use bibxml for RFCs, I find that I can rarely use it
for references to I-Ds because either the exact information I
need isn't reliably there or because I need different naming or
structure for stylistic reasons.  Interestingly, the outcome of
a recent discussion with the RFC Editor about a style issue will
result in my being able to use it for fewer references to RFCs
than has been normal in the past.

   john