Re: names of RFC references (was: models-09 comments)

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 09:39 AM 1/7/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 08:45 AM 12/21/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-09.txt says:
>
>>>> 12.1. Normative References
>>>
>>>Suggest to put the references in alphabetical order.
>> 
>> The references will end up ordered by the final mnemonics
>> used (which, I hope, will be based on numbers of the
>> RFCs-to-be).
>
>I can't find the message now, but I thought you told me the
>RFC Editor would not rename references.  Am I wrong?

I might have said something like that.  I believe the
RFC Editor will use the keywords in the document unless it
is obvious that the document follows a different citation
style, then they'll update keywords and ordering of references
is consistent with that style.  The authors, of course, are
given an opportunity to review the document before it is
published.  My point here is that this editorial detail
can and should be addressed by the Document Editor through
proper coordination with the RFC Editor.

>[Protocol], at least, seems to intend to use descriptive
>mnemonics and not RFC names as reference names.  It already
>has several RFC references which are not named 'RFCxxxx'.

While the LDAPBIS Editors agreed to use a consistent style,
it's not always clear exactly what that style is.  I've been
working with Jim on style issues. 

>It would be nice if the LDAPbis documents had more or less
>the same reference names for the same documents, at least
>for references to LDAPbis documents.

Yes.  I hope we can leave it to the Editors to determine
exactly what LDAPBIS style is.

>I'll post a list of differences between reference names is
>anyone is interested.

Pointing out differences in style (where it matters) is
useful.

Kurt