I meant to say:
"In other words it could be a SNAPSHOT."
Ole On Jan 27, 2024, at 14:13, Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
It's been nearly 40 years since I had a similar debate with Bob Braden about how to cite Internet-Drafts in (then) ConneXions and (now) The Internet Protocol Journal. We ended up agreeing that I should always use the phrase "work in progress" even when that meant or implied "at the time it was published." In other words it could be a progress. The reason for citing Internet-Drafts in print was and still is that sometimes it is the only available source material for emerging technology. So, I to me at least, work in progress does not imply that it is still in progress.
I frequently publish articles where only the I-D is available when the author(s) send me the source, but I make it a habit of checking if the ID is still "live", has a new version or became an RFC before going to print. So, yes, encouraging use of the data tracker would be the best solution IMO.
Ole On Jan 27, 2024, at 13:21, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott, I don't like the "work in progress" phrase. I occasionally have to cite very old drafts such as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-aeiou/ to explain to somebody why IPv6 is what it is, and those drafts are very definitely not "work in progress". I have no problem with the "reference material" phrase, but it is already implied by calling something a "draft". Regards Brian On 28-Jan-24 08:54, Scott Bradner wrote: this seems to give I-Ds too much stature - imo this would be better
Internet-Drafts are draft documents that may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." For the current status of this draft, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-draft-draft/ .
Scott
On Jan 27, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28-Jan-24 07:40, John Levine wrote:
I would still like to get some agreement on what problem we're solving
Thank you.
I think that the problem is that the current boilerplate in every draft is misleading. We wonder why people ignore the boilerplate. Well, the fact that it's misleading certainly doesn't help.
Without even touching RFC2026, which does not prescribe the boilerplate, we could do something like this:
OLD:
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 April 2024.
NEW:
Internet-Drafts are draft documents that may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. For the current status of this draft, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-draft-draft/ .
(I also think that 6-monthly refreshes of drafts are wasteful, but there is clearly no consensus about that.)
Brian
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
