Network Working Group (trad.) B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational C. Partridge
Expires: August 12, 2011 BBN
February 8, 2011
Recommendations of a committee on RFC citation issues
draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-recs-00
Abstract
The Transitional RFC Editor set up a small committee in 2010 to look
into several issues concerning citations of, and within, RFCs. This
report summarizes the committee's recommendations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) . . . . . . . . . 3
3. How documents in the RFC series should cite other RFCs . . . . 4
4. How documents in the RFC series should cite Internet-Drafts . 4
5. Citing RFCs from Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. General Advice on Citing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. BibTeX Entries for RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Citing Internet-Drafts from Other Documents . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. General Advice on Citing Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. BibTeX Entries for Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Authors Initials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
1. Introduction
In July 2010, Glenn Kowack, the transitional RFC Editor (TRSE), set
up a small committee to look into issues concerning citations of RFCs
by other documents, and concerning how citations within RFCs, whether
they be of RFCs, Internet-Drafts, or other documents. This document
constitutes the committee's report and recommendations.
The matters considered by the committee were:
1. Determine the right ISSN entry format for the RFC series and
recommend how to ensure it is appropriately catalogued
internationally.
2. Determine how documents in the RFC series should cite other RFCs.
3. Determine how documents in the RFC series should cite Internet-
Drafts.
4. Recommend how RFCs should be cited using the ACM, IEEE and MLA
reference formats.
5. Recommend how RFCs should be represented in BibTex.
Over the course of its deliberations, the committee added an
additional issue:
1. Whether to list all initials for authors.
We now discuss these items in turn, with our conclusions and
recommendations.
2. International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
An ISSN is an eight digit number that uniquely identifies a paper or
electronic series publication such as a scientific journal; all
issues of a given journal carry the same ISSN. It is used in both
traditional and on-line library catalogues and the like, and is
mentioned in some scholarly publications as part of a citation,
although this is relatively rare. The RFC Series has ISSN 2070-1721.
The ISSN does not convey any particular status; it is just intended
as an aid for identification, cataloguing and searching. It applies
retroactively to the entire RFC series. We make two recommendations:
1. The ISSN should be included when RFCs are cited, but only in
cases where the same is done for other series publications.
2. The RFC Editor should take steps to ensure that the current ISSN
registration held by issn.org and the appropriate entry at
http://www.worldcat.org are up to date and accurate.
Note: The current registration entry includes
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
Publisher
Marina del Rey, CA : IETF Trust
Issuing body (as on the piece)
IETF Trust
Issuing body (as on the piece)
Internet Engineering Task Force
Issuing body (as on the piece)
IETF
The fact that the IETF Trust holds copyright does not make it the
publisher. We RECOMMEND that both the publisher and the issuing body
should be shown as "RFC Editor". This is much less prone to error
than showing the various RFC streams as the issuing body.
3. How documents in the RFC series should cite other RFCs
We have seen no convincing arguments for changing the current style
and format, illustrated here [RFC2629] and in the References section
below.
An alternative style used in some RFCs is a numeric label such as [1]
instead of a symbolic label. We consider this acceptable for RFCs
containing many references where the symbolic style would be visually
confusing.
4. How documents in the RFC series should cite Internet-Drafts
The committee observed that Internet-Drafts are now widely cited.
The reasons vary from establishing when an idea was developed (e.g.
for patent purposes), to documenting design paths not followed, or
simply giving credit for an idea where credit is due. Furthermore,
for some of these purposes, the particular instantiation of the
Internet-Draft matters as different drafts contain different
information.
In this light, the committee RECOMMENDS that, except in standards
track documents, the RFC Editor permit the citation of Internet-
Drafts in RFCs. For the reasons discussed below, we also RECOMMEND
updating the current practices for citing Internet-Drafts.
Current practice is based on a strict interpretation of [RFC2026]:
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
subject to change or removal at any time.
********************************************************
* *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. *
* *
********************************************************
Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft.
Thus, a recent citation today reads:
[MIF-PRACTICE] Wasserman, M. and P. Seite, "Current Practices for
Multiple Interface Hosts", Work in Progress,
August 2010.
Such a citation raises several possible problems:
1. It does not suffice for a reader who wishes to locate a copy,
because it does not include the relevant file name. If the user
finds a document with the same title, there is no certainty that
it is the version cited.
2. Furthermore, citing only the month of publication does not
identify the version, if the document has been frequently
updated. Indeed even citing the exact day of publication is
insufficient; Internet-Drafts are sometimes updated more than
once a day.
3. In some circumstances, an RFC might need to cite more than one
version of the same draft (for example, when comparing
alternative proposed solutions). This compunds the previous
issue.
4. The phrase "Work in Progress" may be misleading or simply
incorrect when referring to an older draft that has in fact been
abandoned by its authors.
Our discussions did not lead to a simple solution to these problems.
We RECOMMEND that
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
1. The RFC Editor should include the exact publication date in the
citation of an Internet-Draft.
2. Authors should be allowed to cite several versions of the same
draft.
3. If further disambiguation is necessary, the RFC Editor should
have the discretion to include the full Internet-Draft file name.
4. If appropriate, a citation of a historical Internet-Draft should
use the phrase "Working Draft" instead of "Work in Progress". We
would have preferred to make this applicable in all cases, but
the wording of RFC 2026 is unambiguous regarding standards track
documents.
5. Citing RFCs from Other Documents
We believe that RFCs should be treated as scholarly publications for
citation purposes [CCR]. Clearly, the exact format depends on the
citation style adopted by a particular publisher.
The Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the
world's largest professional society for the advancement of
technology and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is the
leading professional society in computing. Both publish a number of
journals and conference proceedings in which RFCs are cited. The
Modern Library Association (MLA) standards are widely used for
doctoral dissertations in the United States.
The committee discovered that while IEEE and ACM have canonical
formats for citations, it turns out that their conferences and
journals routinely are allowed to adopt different formats and do so.
What does seem to be common is that virtually every journal and
conference and dissertation preparation package knows how to
translate a BIBTEX reference into the conference's or journal's
preferred form.
Accordingly, rather than worry about each citation format
individually, the committee chose to focus on getting the BIBTEX
representation discussed in the next section in a form that would
lead to clear, consistent, and effective citations.
5.1. General Advice on Citing RFCs
The committee's BibTeX discussions were guided by the following
decisions regarding how we felt RFCs should be cited.
1. The publisher, institution, or organization is identified as the
"RFC Editor" (not the IETF, the IRTF, the IETF Trust, the
Internet Society, etc.).
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
2. The copyright holder is "The IETF Trust".
3. The ISSN is 2070-1721.
4. If a series name is required, it should be "Internet Requests for
Comment".
5. The volume number is the RFC number itself, e.g. "RFC 2026".
6. The correct typography includes a blank space. Both "RFC2026"
and "RFC-2026" are incorrect as a descriptive term.
7. The URL format is http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc####.txt where
#### is replaced with the four digit RFC number (for numbers
below 1000, there is no leading 0).
8. Some RFCs are collective works attributed to editors, rather than
authors. This should be indicated in the citation.
5.2. BibTeX Entries for RFCs
At present, a very wide range of different BibTeX entry types are
used (e.g. @ARTICLE, @MISC, @TECHREPORT) which often yields
incomplete and inconsistent citations. Also, a wide range of values
have been used for PUBLISHER or INSTITUTION over the years. We hope
to reduce inconsistency, increase accuracy, and also improve clarity
of RFC citations by specifying a standard BibTeX entry format for use
in citing RFCs.
All RFCs receive substantial review prior to publication. While RFCs
published on different tracks have slight variances in the review
process (e.g. IRTF track RFCs are reviewed by the IRSG before
publication, while IETF track RFCs are reviewed by the IESG instead),
all RFCs receive substantial technical review prior to publication.
[RFC 5741][RFC 5742][RFC 5743] In most cases, an RFC has also had
significant public review within the Internet engineering and
research community prior to publication as an RFC. As such, all RFCs
are peer-reviewed publications.[CCR]
We mention this here in part because some organisational technical
reports, which might also be cited using the @TECHREPORT BibTeX entry
type, are not normally peer-reviewed prior to publication as a
technical report.
We RECOMMEND that all authors citing RFCs from documents other than
RFCs and Internet-Drafts use the @TECHREPORT{} entry type, with the
fields and values illustrated in the example below. When an RFC
includes the day of the month when it was published, it also is
important to include the day in the BibTeX entry. Many RFCs list
only month and year, as in the example entry below.
We also RECOMMEND that the RFC Editor create and maintain a canonical
BibTeX file at a stable public location on the web server "www.rfc-
editor.org", so that authors using BibTeX can easily obtain a BibTeX
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
file with all issued RFCs.
@techreport{rfc1654,
AUTHOR = "Yakov Rekhter and Tony Li",
TITLE = "{A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)}",
HOWPUBLISHED = {Internet Requests for Comments},
TYPE="{RFC}",
NUMBER=1654,
PAGES = {1-56},
YEAR = {1995},
MONTH = {July},
ISSN = {2070-1721},
PUBLISHER = "{RFC Editor}",
INSTITUTION = "{RFC Editor}",
URL={http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1654.txt}
}
6. Citing Internet-Drafts from Other Documents
Unlike RFCs, Internet-Drafts are working draft documents. Each
version of each Internet-Draft expires after 6 months. In many cases
the draft is revised and a new version of that Internet-Draft then
becomes valid.
As working documents, the level to which an Internet-Draft has been
reviewed varies widely. Internet-Drafts actively being worked on as
official IAB, IESG, IETF WG, or IRTF RG drafts are often being
carefully reviewed and edited. Other Internet-Drafts also may have
been widely circulated for review and reflect careful editng.
However, it is impossible to determine the level of review and
editing simply by looking at the origin of an Internet-Draft.
[RFC 2026] specifies that active IETF track Internet-Drafts be cited
as "Work in Progress". This has created some confusion, especially
in the case where a draft being cited has both expired and also is
not actively being worked on. So we RECOMMEND that "Working Draft"
be used, rather than "Work in Progress", except for an active IETF-
track Internet-Draft.
As with RFCs, rather than worry about each citation format
individually, the committee chose to focus on getting the BIBTEX
representation in a form that will consistently lead to effective
citations.
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
6.1. General Advice on Citing Internet-Drafts
The committee's BibTeX discussions were guided by the following
decisions regarding how we felt Internet-Drafts should be cited.
1. Internet-Drafts are not published documents, so there is no
publisher. As such, don't include a publisher in the BibTeX
entry or printed citation of an Internet-Draft.
2. At present, all Internet-Drafts, regardless of intended document
track, are processed and made available by the IETF Secretariat.
So the ORGANIZATION or INSTITUTION field should contain: "IETF
Secretariat".
3. The copyright holder is: "The IETF Trust".
4. There is no ISSN, because an Internet-Draft has not been
published.
5. If a series name is required, it should be: "Internet Drafts"
6. The number field should be the complete filename of the Internet-
Draft being cited. Normally this SHOULD be the text version, as
that is the canonical version. In special situations, for
example where complex equations or drawings are included, an
alternative version (e.g. HTML, PDF) MAY be referenced.
7. While many modern Internet-Drafts are available from an IETF
Secretariat tools web site even after expiration, normally the
URL for the Internet Draft SHOULD be omitted from the BibTeX
entry. In special situations, for example an older Internet-
Draft whose online location is obscure, a URL MAY be included.
8. Some Internet-Drafts are collective works attributed to editors,
rather than authors. This should be indicated in the citation.
9. For IETF track drafts, HOWPUBLISHED MUST be "Work in Progress".
For other Internet-Drafts, the HOWPUBLISHED field SHOULD read
"Working Draft" instead.
6.2. BibTeX Entries for Internet Drafts
At present, a very wide range of different BibTeX entry types are
used (e.g. @ARTICLE, @MISC, @TECHREPORT) which often yields
incomplete and inconsistent citations. Also, a wide range of values
have been used for PUBLISHER or INSTITUTION over the years. We hope
to reduce inconsistency, increase accuracy, and also improve clarity
of Internet-Draft citations by specifying a standard BibTeX entry
format for use in citing them.
We RECOMMEND that all authors citing Internet-Drafts from documents
other than RFCs and Internet-Drafts use the @TECHREPORT{} entry type,
with the fields and values illustrated in the example below. It is
important to include the full date and full Internet-Draft filename
within the BibTeX entry in order to make the precise intended
document and document version clear.
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
@TECHREPORT{draft-ipng-gseaddr-00.txt,
AUTHOR="M. O'Dell",
TITLE="{GSE: An Alternate Addressing Architecture for IPv6}",
HOWPUBLISHED="{Working Draft}",
TYPE="{Internet-Draft}",
NUMBER="draft-ipng-gseaddr-00.txt",
INSTITUTION="{IETF Secretariat}",
DAY=24,
MONTH=Feb,
YEAR=1997
}
7. Authors Initials
While looking at how RFCs and Internet-Drafts are cited, the
committee noted that many authors citing RFCs or Internet-Drafts
composed the citation only from either the first page of the cited
document or only from the RFC Index (e.g. rfc-index.txt). The
committee observed that the practice of limiting ourselves to a
single author initial in RFCs and Internet-Drafts thereby
occasionally leads to uncertainty about who authored or edited the
document being cited.
The solution is clear but inevitably requires a change to RFC and
Internet-Draft document formats. The committee RECOMMENDS that ALL
of an author's initials be included both when the author's name is
listed on the front page of the RFC or Internet-Draft, at the foot of
each page and in author contact information. We further RECOMMEND
that this practice carry over into citations and that all author
initials be included in any citation.
8. Security Considerations
Accurate and up to date references are important to ensure that all
those involved in specifying, implementing, operating, and using
Internet protocols apply the best possible security measures.
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
The committee members were Ran Atkinson, Brian Carpenter, Dave
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC citation recommendations February 2011
Crocker, Paul Hoffman, Craig Partridge, Julian Reschke and Peter
Saint-Andre. The committee was convened by Craig Partridge,
occasionally assisted by Brian Carpenter.
Useful comments and contributions were made by ....
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
11. Informative References
[CCR] Carpenter, B. and C. Partridge, "Internet Requests for
Comments (RFCs) as Scholarly Publications", ACM SIGCOMM
CCR 40 (1) 31-33, 2010.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland, 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Craig Partridge
Raytheon BBN Technologies
10 Moulton St
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
Email: craig@aland.bbn.com
Carpenter & Partridge Expires August 12, 2011 [Page 11]