> Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm still not happy with the references.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that, because it seems to me that most of the things
> you're not happy with (a) are dictated by tools we do not have the power
> to change, at least not today,
I did not comment on that in my previous mail.
> (b) are not any different from other RFCs
> that reference ISO standards,
Ditto.
> and (c) can be changed by the RFC editor
> anyway if he sees fit.
Maybe so.
>> No need to repeat the year twice for any
>> ---> of the references.
>
> Except that (a) we were supposed to use the name of the document from
> the online ISO catalog, and (b) xml2rfc makes us insert a date.
There is no need to mention the year twice. If it cannot be put only where
ISO puts it, include it only where the tool requires it.
>> ---> Either consistently include edition (for dated references...)
>> ---> or consistenly exclude it.
>
> I thought you wanted us to use the listings straight out of the online
> ISO catalog.
Yes.
> That is what they have.
No. Look again. The ISO catalogue (at www.iso.org) is consistent on this
point. The edition nr. is always given, but separately from the title.
>> [UN_M.49] Statistical Division, United Nations, "Standard Country or
>> Area Codes for Statistical Use", UN Standard Country or
>> Area Codes for Statistical Use, Revision 4 (United Nations
>> publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9, June 1999.
>
> OK, my turn. I take this opportunity to point out, as I have done
> privately, that the correct name is "United Nations Statistics
> Division," not "Statistical."
Which I corrected too, in the edited version of the references
section that I sent the other day. I did double-check all the
non-RFC references. Again, I don't see the need to repeat subitems
twice, though here it is not the year that is repeated.
/kent k
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.