I think it would be better to use phrasing like this:
BCP 32 (currently RFC 2606)
Tony Hansen
tony@xxxxxxx
John C Klensin wrote:
--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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf