On 27/06/2018 10:04, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 13:24 -0700 "Heather Flanagan (RFC
> Series Editor)" <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I would suggest to Heather that a mention of this as the Style
>>> Guide evolves would probably also be a good thing -- it isn't
>>> as if adding relevant citations is difficult or costly.
>>
>> This is going to be a bit trickier. I'm supportive of adding
>> something about author ethics, but it would be along the lines
>> of "the RFC Editor will not be checking on this; you should do
>> this because it's the right thing." We don't have the
>> resources to do a full-on review of the literature; if the
>> IETF wants that as a priority, we'll need to talk about costs
>> and/or reprioritizing other RFC Editor activities.
>
> That is consistent with what I had in mind. On the other hand,
> if a missing citation is noticed and commented on during Last
> Call and the IESG decides to let the document reach you and the
> Production Center without the issue being addressed, I think
> that would be ample ground for an appeal of the document action.
>
>> I think a note on the IETF norms for referencing other RFCs to
>> be a good thing to include in the Tao.
>
> Yes, although Randy's main point, at least as I understood it,
> was that authors should be citing important papers in the
> external literature that provide the foundations for whatever is
> being done in proposed RFCs. "Don't pretend, even by omission,
> to have invented ideas that were not yours" would also be a good
> comment for the Tao and/or assorted documents on appropriate
> behavior.
Quite apart from the ethical aspect, such citations would help
anyone needing to do a prior art search.
Brian
