--On Wednesday, 31 January, 2007 11:50 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2007-01-31 00:35, Ned Freed wrote:
> ...
>> More generally, I have a problem with normative cituations to
>> BCP and STD numbers since the underlying document can change.
>> That's arguably OK for an informational citation, but IMO
>> normative references may have version dependencies that need
>> to be taken into account.
>
> I think that is absolutely correct for technical specs. In the
> specific case
> of the IPR process documents, which Spencer raised, it may
> well be that
> the correct citation should be the latest version. (But not in
> all cases;
> when discussing the copyright status of RFC mumble, the
> copyright rules
> in force at the time of publication may be the correct
> citation.)
Brian,
Except for the fact that the material being cited contains the
specifics of license and IPR releases, and promises to abide by
certain rules, by the authors. Authors can't reasonably be
asked to agree to something that might be published under the
BCP number in the indefinite future, so you are either stuck
with a document (RFC) number or a BCP as of a specific date,
which amounts to the same thing and is harder to track down.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf