On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 11:21 PM 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".
I agree with you. Any I-D is an important reference some adopted by IETF and some individual, but all are documents that can/should be referenced if needed in discussions/lists/meetings/I-Ds, however, referencing within RFCs I suggest we don't use I-Ds as references only if they are really work in progress (really means that the authors are willing to continue and that it is not expired or that it has expire date after the rerencing_RFC publish date.
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/ .
Why we should accept that while considering new technologies and practical work in the world of referencing documents/knowledge?
or what is the best methods of referencing knowledge/information. The main issue is does the document produce important knowledge, so we need to seek knowledge from information and seek information from data/specifications/codes/implementations/practices.
So I think it is "appropriate" to use I-Ds as reference materials for discussions/meeting_presentations/IETF_email_lists/documents/reports/specifications, however, the use of words of "work in progress" should be mostly used for IETF_adopted_ID which is not expired for more than two or three IETF meeting duration. We can used words as "expired work" or "work not concluded" for both adopted or individual I-Ds, but mostly if well written in a way that give good knowledge overall to be referenced as document or source of knowledge.
therefore, we may suggrest:
it is not appropriate to use individual I-Ds as reference material cited as "work in progress" while the I-D is expired for more than 1 month.
it is not appropriate to use adopted I-Ds as reference material cited as "work in progress" while the I-D is expired for more than 6 months.
it is not appropriate to use adopted I-Ds as reference material cited as in IETF RFC as "work in progress" while the I-D is expired before RFC published date.
Best Regards
AB
