search

ietf-tools / relaton-data-ids

Bibliographic data information for Internet-Drafts in Relaton format
7 stars 10 forks source link

I-Ds are drafts, but type is `standard` #8

Open strogonoff opened 2 years ago

strogonoff commented 2 years ago

Wikipedia describes Internet Drafts in a way that strongly hints we should use document type draft, not standard. For example, it claims they are not supposed to be relied on by the public at large.

From the article I get the feeling that RFC is a standard, but I-D is not. Unless I am mistaken as to what “type” is supposed to mean in Relaton?

However, we use standard for I-Ds: https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-ids/blob/main/data/draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-02.yaml#L13

strogonoff commented 2 years ago

Also, there is an attribute draft, which I don’t know how to tie into this.

larseggert commented 2 years ago

I-Ds are definitely not standards.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@strogonoff I prefer not to involve the Relaton model here but this is a good point.

We know I-Ds are drafts. But should we consider them "drafts on path to RFCs"?

P.S. ISO 690/Relaton has a long list of accepted types that are not "standards":

larseggert commented 2 years ago

We know I-Ds are drafts. But should we consider them "drafts on path to RFCs"?

No, you should not. Quite a few I-Ds are not meant to be ever published as RFCs.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Thanks @larseggert , that’s what I suspected.

If we consider I-Ds as “tech reports”, would that be a reasonable match?

larseggert commented 2 years ago

That's what the bibtex citations in the datatracker generate at the moment, so I think that should be fine.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Thanks @larseggert , somehow I missed this message. We should change the type to "tech report" instead.

rjsparks commented 1 year ago

@ronaldtse - is there anything that still needs to be done for this issue, or can it be closed?