Hi John, Carsten,
At 11:48 AM 10-12-2024, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson
<john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Internet-drafts are obviously
"permanent and readily available", I don't see
why that is debated. For registries wanting
RFCs there is "RFC required". I am against any
registry saying that "permanent and readily
available" internet-drafts are NOT OK, but
pointing to a website outside of the IETF is
¦
This.
There really can't be any discussion on the facts here.
I agree with what you both said when I first read the text quoted above.
The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) was used as
the style guide for RFCs. The 17th edition of
the CMOS said that it's a good idea to note the
date of access for a web page as the web page may
change later. The same citation guidance does
not apply for printed material, e.g. a published journal.
The Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC)
Authors, dated 20 February 2002, discouraged the
use of URLs in RFCs because many URLs were not
considered as stable references. The RFC Style
Guide, dated September 2014, stated that the use
of URIs in references is acceptable as long as
the URI is unlikely to change and expected to be continuously available.
Nowadays, the RFC Production Center verifies
whether the URI is accessible as part of the
editorial process used to produce a RFC. If I am
not mistaken, it does not verify whether the URI
is unlikely to change or whether the URI will be continuously available.
My understanding of the procedure for submitting
an Internet-Draft is that it is a hands-off
approach. The requirements are in RFC 4228
(please see Section 7.5.1). I have come across
cases where an Internet-Draft was referred to as
"IETF RFC draft". It's not within my scope to
decide whether it's appropriate or not to do that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
