Re: Fwd: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05

From: Patrik Fältström (paf@cisco.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 2000 - 17:04:24 MST


At 15.53 -0800 00-11-15, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>At 15.43 -0800 00-11-15, Ian Cooper wrote:
>>Is the fix to simply make the filenames/references look less like
>>internet-drafts and just keep them in their current locations?
>
>I would say, less like URL's. The URL is not persistent enough. The
>URL can be there, but a way is needed to find the data when the URL
>is no longer valid and correct.

That response only covered one of the problems.

The problem with referencing I-D's are that I-D's are temporary while
RFC's are static. Because of this, we write out the name of the I-D
together with "Work in progress" string, and do so only for
non-normative references.

If you have normative references, you have to have a more static name
than the name of an I-D, or rather, to a more static object than an
I-D.

    Patrik



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST