Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- styleweb [2012/06/18 21:50] – created rsewikiadmin
+++ styleweb [2012/10/12 20:45] (current) – [Capitalization of file types] rsewikiadmin
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 As new recommendations are being tested or updated to reflect current usage, this site will change.
-===== Referencing Wikipedia =====
-Because Wikipedia pages change, references to Wikipedia should be avoided.  If avoiding such references is not possible, then the following reference format must be followed.
-References to Wikipedia should include the date that the page was visited and the URL specific to the version available on that date. For example:
-[TwoGenerals] "The Two Generals' Problem", March 2011,
-              <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
-              index.php?title=Two_Generals%27_Problem&oldid=
-              417855753>.
@@ Line 25: / Line 13: @@
 //Someone will need to take proper ownership for this citation library//
 ===== Referencing BCP, STD and associated individual RFC =====
@@ Line 51: / Line 40: @@
 With this convention, the documents that comprise the STD number at that time of pub are documented and the text is clear where it is referring to a specific document vs the suite of protocols (e.g., "RFC 3412 [STD62] discusses Message Processing Dispatching..." or "The SNMP Standard [STD62] ...").
+===== Referencing I-D in an RFC =====
+//This advice is itself a Work in Progress//
+(From the Citation Committee - http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc-citation-recs-01.txt)
+   We RECOMMEND that "Working Draft" be used for IETF stream Internet-
+   Drafts that have expired and are no longer part of an active IETF
+   initiative.  A good sign of such cases is when a newer draft has been
+   released or a draft has been expired for over a year.  For all other
+   publishing streams, we RECOMMEND that "Working Draft" be used to
+   characterize all Internet-Drafts.
+If a specific version of the I-D is being referenced, reference should also include the full file name in order to capture the revision number.
 ===== Judging the stability of a website reference =====
@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
   * the URL provided should point to the original document or site when possible for both stability and potential copyright issues
   * the URL provided should point to a reliable and credible source (note that sites like Wikipedia do not consider their content consistently reliable or credible)
@@ Line 66: / Line 67: @@
   * capitalization may remain at the author's discretion, with the following caveats:
-    * use of capitalization must be consistent for all authors of an RFC
+    * use of capitalization must be consistent for an author across all RFCs
-    * use of capitalization must be consistent for an author across all RFC
+===== Capitalization of file types and compression formats =====
@@ Line 96: / Line 99: @@
 Collector                 [RFC5470, Section 2]
+===== References =====
+//Consider allowing for "Additional Reading" - links to materials not directly cited //
 ===== RFC physical format =====
-//Was Appendix B of the RFC Style Guide.//
+//Was Appendix B of the RFC Style Guide Draft.  Will very likely change significantly with new Format decisions.//
    *  RFCs are normally published as plain text files in the [US-]ASCII