Re: References to work in progress

[ned.freed@mrochek.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?  :-)

My palate doesn't care for them either, but perhaps that's because I wasn't
born here...

				Ned