Re: [xml2rfc] referencing an old ID as expired

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 05.05.2020 16:49, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I want to reference an old ID for various reasons.  The ID is expired
> and no xml.  So I created my own ref section:
>
> <reference anchor="draft.moskowitz-hip-arch-02">
> <front>
>      <title>Host Identity Payload</title>
>      <author initials="R" surname="Moskowitz" fullname="Robert Moskowitz">
>      <organization/>
>      </author>
>      <date month="February" day="22" year="2001"/>
>      <abstract>
>      <t>
>      This memo describes the reasoning behind proposing a new namespace,
> the Host Identity, and a payload, between the Internetworking and
> Transport layers, the Host layer, to carry this identity.  Herein is
> presented the basics of the current namespaces, strengths and
> weaknesses, and how a new namespace will add completeness to them. This
> new namespace's roles in the protocols are defined.
>      </t>
>      </abstract>
> </front>
> <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02"/>
> <format type="TXT"
> target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02.txt"/>

There's no point in adding the <format> element. It doesn't do anything.

> </reference>
>
> And got:
>
>     [draft.moskowitz-hip-arch-02]
>                Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Payload", Work in Progress,
>                Internet-Draft, draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02, 22 February
>                2001,
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02>.
>
>
> How do I change this from "Work in Progress" to "Expired"?

The RFC Style Guide requires that internet drafts are cited as "work in
progress", so this is what the formatter inserts automatically.

If you want to avoid that, you can't use the seriesinfo name attribute
of "Internet-Draft". This

   <seriesInfo name="expired Internet-Draft"
value="draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02"/>

might roughly do what you want.

(And if it does, you'll have to supply the URI in the reference's target
attribute manually)


Best regards, Julian

PS: if this document gets into AUTH48, you may have to back this out :-)-

PPS: and yes, this is bad. We had a whole committee discussing
references to internet drafts 10 years ago and couldn't fix that.