[AFS3-std] bibxml for finished documents

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 14:24 -0500, Michael Meffie wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:11:39 -0500
> Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 
> > When referring to internet drafts from other (XML source) I-Ds, 
> > xml.resource.org provides a handy service of pregenerated bibliography XML 
> > entries for the draft (e.g., 
> > http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names.xml). 
> > When a document moves from an I-D to an RFC, a new URL for the document's 
> > bibxml is provided on xml.resource.org, reflecting its status as a 
> > published RFC.  While a document is still an I-D, references to it from 
> > other I-Ds include the phrase "(work in progress)" in the references 
> > section.
> > 
> > The AFS-3 standardization community is using I-Ds for its working 
> > documents, but we currently publish finalized documents on 
> > http://afs3-stds.central.org.  At present, these documents are still 
> > formatted as internet drafts (perhaps they should be reformatted?). 
> > However, the easiest way to get bibxml entries for them remains the 
> > xml.resource.org site, which includes the "work in progress" statement, 
> > which is no longer true.  Should we host our own bibxml for finished 
> > documents?  It would seem to make a few things cleaner, but does require 
> > some effort to generate and host the entries.
> 
> Creating a bibxml3 directory on afs3-std.central.org for completed documents
> seems reasonable to me, and sounds like something the co-chairs can do as part
> of promoting the document.
> 
> Jeffrey Huztelman, do you have an opinion?

Yes, we probably should publish bibxml for our finished documents, to
make it easier to cite them in I-Ds and the like.

And yes, once a document is approved, we probably should produce
something that looks less like an internet-draft and more like a "final"
document.  But I'm not sure what that should look like.  Just running
things through xml2rfc in rfc mode is not quite enough.

-- Jeff