Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"

Adam Roach-3
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
[hidden email]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"

Brian E Carpenter-2
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
> [hidden email]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress"

Martin Thomson-3
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
<[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest