On 2010-09-01 18:43, Tony Li wrote:
> Hi Paul,
...
>> Many of the Internet Drafts in the references are
>> long-expired, including one of the two normative
>> references. This will make for an interesting conversation
>> with the RFC Editor.
>
>
> The expired normative reference is the design goals document.
> We'll be updating that and passing that up for IRSG review as
> well.
Being a member of the RSAG (RFC Series Advisory Group), I can't
resist the urge to comment, with no authority whatever. The
concept of 'normative' references was invented, iirc, to
identify references that an implementor of an IETF Standard
necessarily must read in order to produce a correct
implementation. I don't see the value of splitting the
references for an IRTF Infomational document; if I'd noticed
that during RRG Last Call I would have said so then. So this
issue is easily fixed by simply listing 'References' rather than
splitting them into two heaps.
> Note that many of the other proposals are not opting to
> publish as RFC status, so many of the informational
> references will time out. I'm not particularly happy about
> this, but I don't see a good solution either. We can't
> exactly force people to publish.
Strangely enough, the RSAG's sub-committee on citation formats
(yes, there is really such a sub-committee) is today discussing
whether long expired drafts should continue to be cited as "work
in progress". Indeed, Dave Crocker just came up with several
possible alternatives:
>> WNLIP - Work No Longer In Progress
>>
>> WA - Work Abandoned.
>>
>> WRIP - Work Resting In Peace
I rather like WRIP. For now, though, the convention is to label
them as "work in progress" even when it's a lie. There's one
level below that, "private communication", but Google makes that
a pretty rare case.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
