Re: References to work in progress

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <200309261250.h8QCoIWd026034@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten 
writes:
>> 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.

Academic standards demand that I cite things as precisely as possible in 
my papers.  And Randy's point about particular versions is important -- 
when I was writing http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/badesp.ps
I had to hunt around the Internet to find old versions of of the SKIP 
draft, because they had changed the relevant text.  (See section 3.4)


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb