Subject: Re: Fwd: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:11:34 -0800

At 17.07 -0700 00-11-15, Hilarie Orman wrote:
>I've not seen the text in question, but this sounds very strange.
>Are you saying that draft references must be to paper documents?

Where below do I talk about paper documents?

I wrote "The URL is not persistent enough.". You have to have a name 
of the document so it is possible to find it.

For many of them, you point to only a URL and nothing else.

Then we have the issues with references to Internet Drafts which I 
mentioned in a second email.

    paf

>I surely hope not.
>
>Search engines are perfectly nifty ways to find data when the
>URL is no longer valid and correct, so I'm confused by the
>advice you seem to be giving.  Please forgive me if I am
>misunderstanding the discussion.
>
>Hilarie
>
>>>>  Patrik Fältström  <[email-masked]> 11/15/00 04:53PM >>>
>At 15.43 -0800 00-11-15, Ian Cooper wrote:
>>Is the fix to simply make the filenames/references look less like
>>internet-drafts and just keep them in their current locations?
>
>I would say, less like URL's. The URL is not persistent enough. The
>URL can be there, but a way is needed to find the data when the URL
>is no longer valid and correct.
>
>     paf

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:51:28 -0800

> of the document so it is possible to find it.

To clarify:

RFCs must use only citations to archived, widely-accessible
documents when referring to external supporting documents
(contrasted to when giving credit).

While it may be useful in FINDING something, the web 
is not a citation-quality archive.

Generally, only books with publishers (and thus ISBN 
numbers, thus including conference proceedings, etc), 
and university or commercial tech reports, etc. qualify. 

Joe