Subject: [rfc-i] Book references

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:03:29 -0800

Dear people who care about RFC formats:

XML2RFC v2 defines a very anemic reference format. Essential
information for books and dissertations such as place of publication,
number of pages, editions, institution or press, are all omitted.
That's despite the fact that existing RFCs do include this, albeit
inconsistently, in their references (RFC 5905 cites a book, including
CRC press, etc)

It would be nice to have parity with BibTex: this information is
essential to differentiate between printings and editions and in
tracking down difficult to find volumes. This has recently come up in
editing the roughtime draft, and likely other NTP WG drafts will have
these issues. While the annotation field works, maintaining
consistency when using it is tricky.

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:39:08 +0100

Do DOI references work for you?

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2020-02-17, at 23:03, Watson Ladd <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:49:29 +0100

> consistency when using it is tricky.

You can essentially put *any* kind of free-form information into the
<annotation> element...

Best regards, Julian