Hi Brian, On 27.01.2024 22:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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".
It's a shortcut to be sure. Works in progress don't always... progress. I think we run the risk of clarity versus accuracy, where we could say: "work in progress at the time of posting". But does that really add anything?
I just want to add- I am eternally grateful to academics who I are the most responsible for citation of drafts. It's the one exception to the rule; and it is a good reason why old drafts should somehow remain accessible, so that people can choose to agree or disagree with critical analysis in literature. But everyone should be clear on what is current, and I do applaud both Paul and Martin for seeking to improve the situation. We just must be careful in how we do so.
Eliot Eliot
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
