I-Ds are drafts, but type is standard

[strogonoff]

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]

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

[larseggert]

I-Ds are definitely not standards.

[ronaldtse]

@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]

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]

Thanks @larseggert , that’s what I suspected.

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

[larseggert]

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

[ronaldtse]

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

[rjsparks]

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