Re: BCP or RFC references

[Tony Hansen <tony at att.com>]

I think it would be better to use phrasing like this:

	BCP 32 (currently RFC 2606)

Tony Hansen
tony at att.com

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:13 AM -0500 Eric Gray 
> <eric.gray at ericsson.com> 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 mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf