Re: References to work in progress

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> It seems that RFCs from the IETF have two separate and desirable
> properties:  official and archival.  I suspect that you sort of want
> the official without caring so much about archival, whereas the RFC
> Editor tends to think first about archival issues.  I guess that
> explains the issue here.

nope.  my issue is simply that if you have a reference, please make
it complete and unambiguous.  it allows someone to actually
de-reference it, which i suspect is the reason for references.  if
you don't want someone to follow the reference, then don't make it.

not being a southern californian, my palate is insufficiently
educated to appreciate the subtleties of semi-references.  perhaps
we should have innuendos?  :-)

but, more seriously, as you ain't stoopid, clearly there is a
subtlety i am missing here.

randy