--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:13 AM -0500 Eric Gray
<eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Isn't it a little too redundant to include the parenthetical
"RFC 2606 or its successors" along with BCP 32?
This is really a separate topic and one that it would be nice
if, after all these years, the IESG, RFC Editor, and, if they
care, the IAB would make a decision about and then start
reflecting that decision in style guidelines (including the
Checklist) and in tools.
While I'm going to use "BCP" in the examples below, the question
applies equally well to "STD" numbers.
* Is a citation of BCP NN a reference to whatever the current
version of the BCP, and all of the documents that make it up?
If so, we need citation and referencing formats for such things
that are not tied to an RFC number (or, worse, several RFC
numbers). We have no such referencing model and some tools,
such as xml2rfc and its bibliographic libraries, make faking one
really painful.
* Is a citation of "BCP NN (RFC MMMM)" or "BCP NN [RFCMMMM]" a
reference to the BCP or a reference to the RFC with a note that
it is a BCP? If the latter, should the form be "RFC MMMM (BCP
NN)" or perhaps "RFC MMMM (BCP NN) [RFCMMMM]"? Or should this
form be prohibited?
* If RFC MMMM is a BCP, does referencing it without the BCP
number mean that future revisions or updates don't count?
* If a particular specification is known much more widely by its
RFC number than by its BCP one (which is certainly the case for
RFC 2026), what is the approved form of citation if one wants to
be clear that the BCP and not the RFC is what counts? Choices
include:
-- Use the BCP number and make people try to find out what
is being talked about by consulting the bibliography or some
index outside the document.
-- Use the RFC number with some text like "or its
successors", perhaps even "or its successors as BCP NN".
-- Use the BCP number with the RFC number and hope that
people figure out the BCP is intended and the RFC is
specific.
-- Use the BCP number with the RFC number and a note to make
the intent clear.
I've clearly got some opinions on this, and they favor clarity
over ambiguity, even if the clarity involves some possible
redundancy, but YMMD. And some editorial guidance in the
Checklist, in 2223bis or some other style manual, would, IMO,
really be appreciated.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf