RE: References to work in progress

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I was talking about the final RFC-publication.
Even there, people who read it may want a better handle
to find the papers (IDs) that are referenced.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 26 september 2003 12:44
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Iesg (E-mail); Rfc-Editor (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: References to work in progress 
> 
> 
> 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
>