On 12/15/2010 9:24 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
This indicates to me that the one of the checks the RFC Editor and possibly
idnits should do is whether or not such citations have a "date accessed"
notation.
As already noted, there are two different semantics possible here:
1. Latest version of ...
2. The version as of...
We need to permit both forms, since each is appropriate for some uses.
That said, there should be clarify about /when/ each is appropriate and which
they are not.
d/
ps. The thread has also had different comments about whether this is something
to be resolved by the IESG or by the RFC Editor.
pps. The actual documentation about citation rules (References) is a bit fuzzy,
actually, but at most the IESG can make rules for the IETF stream. I would hope
that basic rules are set by the RFC Editor, for all streams, with relatively
surgical modifications and enhancements made by particular streams. While it
might seem reasonable to have "specification" refinement rules belong to the
IESG, note that there are plenty of specs not on standards track and not coming
from the IETF stream.
As an exercise to conduct for this issue, should "downref" constraints
pertain only to standards track or should it apply to all RFCs? If the latter,
what does it mean to have a downref for a document that is not on standards track?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf