Re: References to work in progress

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> If an archival document has a reference to another specific document,
> either (1) the other document is thereby made archival by reference,
> or (2) we just did something dumb by deliberately creating a dangling
> reference in an archival document.  Either case seems bad to the RFC
> Editor, and heretofore the community has agreed -- hence the "Work
> in Progress".
> 
> It is true that we cannot avoid dangling references alltogether;
> some references in RFCs are going to meet an untimely death, but hopefully
> only a minority of references.  But that admission is a long way from
> deliberately holding up our foot, raising our revolver, and ...
> 
> Normative/not makes no difference, it seems to me.

i do not think anyone is disagreeing with this.  what at least
i am saying is that, if you have a reference to an internet-draft
that is a work in progress, label it however you wish, but please
give the full filename.

rabdt