Subject: [rfc-i] Citing internet drafts

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:37:35 +0200

Hi there,

I just saw
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/changeset/3263>, which
in turn mentions draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03#section-4.8.6.4>
says:

> 4.8.6.4.  Referencing Internet-Drafts
>
>    References to Internet Drafts may only appear as informative
>    references.  Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
>    in a short time frame, references must include the posting date
>    (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
>    version number), and the phrase "Internet Draft".  Authors may
>    reference multiple versions of an I-D.  If the referenced I-D was
>    also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
>
>    [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and
>    First initial.  Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Internet
>    Draft, draft-string-NN, Month Year.
>
>    Example:
>
>    [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S.  Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Internet
>    Draft, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013.

This is a change from 7322, which had
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.4>):

> 4.8.6.4.  Referencing Internet-Drafts
>
>    References to Internet-Drafts may only appear as informative
>    references.  Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
>    in a short time frame, references must include the posting date
>    (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
>    version number), and the phrase "Work in Progress".  Authors may
>    reference multiple versions of an I-D.  If the referenced I-D was
>    also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
>
>       [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
>                       and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if
>                       applicable), "I-D Title", Work in Progress,
>                       draft-string-NN, Month Year.
>
>      Example:
>
>       [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",
>                   Work in Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01,
>                   June 2013.

I personally find this an improvement, but two questions come to mind:

1.) When is this change supposed to go in effect?

2.) Isn't this in conflict with today's Internet Draft boilerplate, wich
clearly says: 'It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."'. Is that
clause going to change as well?

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:46:17 +0200

> clause going to change as well?

That boilerplate is based on the fiction that I-Ds vanish after 6 months.

We now routinely reference I-Ds older than that.  Which may no longer be work in progress, because the work has terminated.  Citing those as “work in progress” is factually incorrect.
Because we don’t have a way to know whether work is in progress for some old cobwebs, something like “Expired Internet-Draft” would be a better way to reference those.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 07:39:40 -0700

> That boilerplate is based on the fiction that I-Ds vanish after 6 

Of course, that that is irrelevant to Julian's question. :-) The 
question is more about how can you have a boilerplate for 
Internet-Drafts that is disregarded by the body of the Internet-Drafts 
themselves.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:57:05 +0200

> Because we don’t have a way to know whether work is in progress for some old cobwebs, something like “Expired Internet-Draft” would be a better way to reference those.

Oh yes, I agree with that.

Let me check my memory: we had a "rfc-citations" design group *nine*
years ago, where we discussed this as well, and, IIRC, I argued for
exactly that.

My question is about the conflict between the draft style guide and the
actual, current, Internet-Draft boilerplate.

Maybe there's a plan to resolve this, but then the change in xml2fc
seems premature to me.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:01:33 -0400

IIUC the restriction that references to drafts must be informational 
only applies to *RFC*s? It is important that *drafts* be able to 
normatively reference other drafts as they progress in parallel, with 
the limitation that they will be forced to progress together, at which 
point they will become references to RFCs. Right?

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:19:19 +0200

On Sep 3, 2019, at 17:01, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> IIUC the restriction that references to drafts must be informational only applies to *RFC*s? It is important that *drafts* be able to normatively reference other drafts as they progress in parallel, with the limitation that they will be forced to progress together, at which point they will become references to RFCs. Right?

Certainly.

(RFC 7322 is the “RFC style guide”. It would be useful to have an “I-D style guide” that points out what an I-D should do to painlessly become an RFC later.  Your point is an example for that.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 03:28:02 -0700

Hi Paul,
At 08:01 AM 03-09-2019, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>normatively reference other drafts as they progress in parallel, 
>with the limitation that they will be forced to progress together, 
>at which point they will become references to RFCs. Right?

I'll use draft-ietf-pim-yang as an example.  The last normative 
reference is to
draft-ietf-bfd-yang.  The publication of draft-ietf-pim-yang as a RFC 
has to be delayed until draft-ietf-pim-yang is ready for publication.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:38:50 +0200

>>>    Draft, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013.

This introduces yet another special case. Why is there a comma when the
document series is "Internet Draft", and otherwise not?

Heather? Any feedback?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:43:57 -0700

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 3:38 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yup.

This is one of those areas I’ve bumped into in the past, and promptly forgot because it doesn’t make sense to me (but it is the rules, and not about me, so…)

We are required to refer to all Internet-Drafts as “work in progress” until such time as the IETF provides an update to RFC 2026. RFC 7322 and its successors cannot do that update - wrong stream, wrong track. So, my guidance in 7322bis is flat out wrong and will have to be rewritten. Sandy, Alice, Henrik, and I are discussing a proposal around what will work now that allows a proper series name AND supports the requisite “work in progress” using the existing v3 vocabulary.

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 17:53:42 +0200

On 06.09.2019 17:43, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> ...
> Yup.
>
> This is one of those areas I’ve bumped into in the past, and promptly
> forgot because it doesn’t make sense to me (but it is the rules, and not
> about me, so…)
>
> We are required to refer to all Internet-Drafts as “work in progress”
> until such time as the IETF provides an update to RFC 2026. RFC 7322 and
> its successors cannot do that update - wrong stream, wrong track. So, my
> guidance in 7322bis is flat out wrong and will have to be rewritten.
> Sandy, Alice, Henrik, and I are discussing a proposal around what will
> work now that allows a proper series name AND supports the requisite
> “work in progress” using the existing v3 vocabulary.

How about just leaving things as they are? Existing code just
special-cases internet drafts, and inserts the text.

If it ain't broke...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:22:45 -0400

fwiw - referring to an ID with a particular version number does not have to use the “work in progress” 
language - the purpose of the “work in progress’ tag was to ensure that no one thought that the 
ID the reader of an RFC found had any relationship to the ID that was current at the time of the RFC
publication

Scott

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:38:53 -0700

> current at the time of the RFC

That seems aspirational rather than factual. While I wish it was true, I 
see nothing in RFC 2026 or RFC 7322 that supports this statement. 
Heather's statement about needing to provide an update to RFC 2026 still 
stands.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:40:54 -0400

as I indicated - it is my opinion 
(I did have something to do with the original language)

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> That seems aspirational rather than factual. While I wish it was true, I see nothing in RFC 2026 or RFC 7322 that supports this statement. Heather's statement about needing to provide an update to RFC 2026 still stands.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman