Re: References to work in progress

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Not quite sure of the context here...

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> writes:

> I see that the RFC-Editor does changes like

>    3  Mannie, E., et. al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>       (GMPLS) Architecture," draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt
>       (work in progress), August 2002.

> into


>    [3]  Mannie, E., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>         (GMPLS) Architecture", Work in Progress, May 2003.

For the final RFC, that is what I'd expect (don't want ID names in
RFCs). But if this is still an ID, I'd definitely prefer seeing the ID
name in there. 

> Which I believe is indeed inline with rfc2223bis text.
> But... as has been pointed out before (Thomas did so I beleive), it
> makes it very hard to find any such "work in progress" documents.

> What is wrong with changing it to:

>    [3]  Mannie, E., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>         (GMPLS) Architecture", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-nn.txt
>                                                                   ^^^^
>         (Work in Progress), May 2003.

> So that the I-D name is still there, but not giving a specific revision.

Version number isn't that important, since one can figure that
out. Having the basename available is very useful though.

Thomas