[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: References to work in progress

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: References to work in progress
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:50:18 -0400
Cc: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>, "Rfc-Editor (E-mail)" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
In-reply-to: Message from bwijnen@lucent.com of "Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:12:34 +0200." <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC303@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>

> The idea is NOT to make IDs more permanent. The idea
> is top make it easier for people to find them while they exist.

Understood.

> Why would this make them any more permanent then just listing 
> the title?

Right now, the simple message is "don't cite IDs in references". Bad
Idea. Just don't do it.

If folk can say, but look, RFCs do this, it will be harder in practice
to push back on improper citing. And/or, other publishers will mimic
the same wording and we will not be able to pushback with any
credibility.

Thomas

Follow-Ups:
- Re: References to work in progress
  - From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
- Re: References to work in progress
  - From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>

References:
- RE: References to work in progress
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Re: References to work in progress
Next by Date: Re: References to work in progress
Previous by thread: RE: References to work in progress
Next by thread: Re: References to work in progress
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread