Re: References to work in progress

[ned.freed@mrochek.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)

I agree. To the extent that references to I-D create some sense of
permanency, it calls into question the wisdom of having such references,
not the wisdom of such references being as precise as possible.

				Ned