--On Thursday, August 18, 2011 02:34 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> As an editorial style matter, RFCs that specify protocols
>> tend to not reference supplemental documents that make
>> operational recommendations. The references run the other
>> way and the other way only. I would consider a reference
>> from 4409bis to 5068 an exception to that general principle.
>
> I also wasn't aware of that general principle, and thought
> that "getting the credits right" is only a chronological
> question: If A and B address topic X, and B is published
> after A, then B should have a reference to A.
Before I accidentally start another argument, I deliberately
said "tend to not" -- I don't believe it has ever been a rigid
rule. I also imagine a search for exceptions would find them
(and would encourage people who are inclined to do such a search
to ask themselves whether their time could be better spend in
other ways).
> The "protocol" vs. "operational" consideration makes sense,
> but again, I didn't know that general principle. Certainly
> no big issue, I just felt like adding my own "MISSREF" after
> looking at the two "MISSREFs" posted by others here.
:-(
As an editor who is (I hope temporarily) close to exhaustion on
that document, I'd like to see the WG concentrating on what it
takes to get it out in a satisfactory form that properly
reflects our intentions about the specification of the protocol,
rather than on how it can be decorated with, e.g., informational
references about assorted things that implementers or operators
of Submission servers or clients might want to know. But that
is just my opinion and preference.. YMMD and I wouldn't dream of
trying to suppress your right to say so.
john
best,
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
