---- On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 23:29:35 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote ---- > [ we need a new rat-hole as relief from pico-managing the selection of a > board on which no one sane would want to be ] > > this is meant to raise consciousness, not cause process-creation or > other complexity. > > over in the research universe, (most; hi dan) folk are careful about > citing prior work in the area, especially if it is seminal. we seem to > be somewhat sloppy over here in standards wonk land; and i am not > entirely comfortable with this. Your ideal of the research universe is nice. Your experience of the real research universe may be not as nice. It is not the opposite, but it is populated with real people, who are not ideal. However, aiming to be as close to the ideal as possible is important to influence what IETF leaves in the world after itself. I personally find this matter more relevant than food, photography and the likes. > but can we do anything when we find a missing cite? > > to have an example, and not meaning to pick on anyone, rfc 7747 uses the > methods of, but does not cite, the 2001 seminal work in the area of > routing convergence measurement by shaikh and greenberg, > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.910.8379 > > yes, it is somewhat painful when the cite would be to a non-rfc, as our > external citing mechanisms are clumsy. The effort the original author(s) had put into producing the referenced work in the first place is worth the 5-10 minutes spent spelling an exotic reference in an I-D. I had done the latter, it was not dramatic at all. > i assume a missing cite is not an erratum. so maybe nothing can be done > other than to encourage authors to be more careful. in general, the > ietf has a weak culture of good citing. and i guess i could/should have > flagged this particular example in a last call <blush>. Editorial errata seem to be the most reasonable first step, and whatever problems remain afterwards can be addressed as the next step. -- Denis Ovsienko
