search

relaton / relaton-ietf

RFCBib: retrieve RFC Standards for bibliographic use using the BibliographicItem model
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
2 stars 0 forks source link

URGENT: Internet-Draft data is considered to be all "draft" type, not "standard" type #73

Open ronaldtse opened 2 years ago

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

As requested by IETF: https://github.com/ietf-ribose/bibxml-service/issues/137

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse the BibliograpnicItem model has type and doctype attributes. I was told by @opoudjis that the type is always standard. For Internet-Draft documents the doctype attribute is "internet-draft". I think we should use the doctype attribute to display document type. Should we change doctype's value from "internet-draft" to just "draft"?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

I was told by @opoudjis that the type is always standard

That is only true for "standards". An Internet-Draft, as already clarified authoritatively by the IETF, should not be considered a "standard".

We should change the type to draft and maintain doctype as internet-draft.

FYI @opoudjis .

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

As we've discussed, draft is not a legal category for bibitem/@type, but we can make it tech-report.

andrew2net commented 3 months ago

@ronaldtse do we have any decision here?

opoudjis commented 3 months ago

I am not adding "draft" to the types. This is a draft standard, or at most a draft tech report. The IETF emphatically does not get to dictate our bibliographic ontology to us, or ask us to profilerate what is a carefully constrained typeset; and if you think they do, @ronaldtse, I invite you to point to where "draft"s are in ISO 690. (Hint: they aren't "unpublished manuscripts" either.)

andrew2net commented 1 month ago

@ronaldtse can we close this issue?