W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: FW: BCP0097 RFC 4897 on Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:25:25 +0200
Message-ID: <46764F85.109@gmx.de>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Ok,

so let's look where we are with 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>, 
using the xml2rfc/XSLT based checker 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references>), 
and checking for an intended status of "DRAFT":

-- cut --
Normative References:
ISO-8859-1: not checked
RFC1766: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3066 RFC3282
RFC1864: [DRAFT STANDARD]
RFC1950: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of DRAFT 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC1951: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of DRAFT 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC1952: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of DRAFT 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2045: [DRAFT STANDARD]
RFC2046: [DRAFT STANDARD]
RFC2047: [DRAFT STANDARD]
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC2617: [DRAFT STANDARD]
RFC2822: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC4288: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0013)
RFC0822: [STANDARD] (-> STD0011) obsoleted by RFC2822
USASCII: not checked

Informative References:
draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01: [  Expired] (not active)
Nie1997: not checked
Pad1995: not checked
RFC1036: [UNKNOWN] ok
RFC1123: [STANDARD] (-> STD0003) ok
RFC1305: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC1436: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC1630: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC1737: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC1738: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC4248 RFC4266
RFC1806: [EXPERIMENTAL] ok
RFC1808: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC1900: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC1945: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2026: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0009) ok
RFC2049: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC2068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC2616
RFC2076: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2145: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2183: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok
RFC2324: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2388: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2557: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC2821: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok
RFC3977: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC0822: [STANDARD] (-> STD0011) obsoleted by RFC2822
RFC0959: [STANDARD] (-> STD0009) ok
Spero: not checked
Tou1998: not checked
WAIS: not checked
-- cut --

In this case, we'll have to add notes explaining why the downrefs to 
RFC1950-1952 (GZIP & friends) and RFC2822 (Internet Message Format) are 
ok (have re-opened issues for these).

Now for the interesting question about how to get to full standard. In 
this case, we get (pasting just the normative ones):

-- cut --
Normative References:
ISO-8859-1: not checked
RFC1766: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3066 RFC3282
RFC1864: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC1950: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC1951: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC1952: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2045: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2046: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2047: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC2617: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2822: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of STANDARD 
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC4288: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0013)
RFC0822: [STANDARD] (-> STD0011) obsoleted by RFC2822
USASCII: not checked
-- cut --

So, in addition we'll have to take care of RFC1766 (update is a BCP, so 
we should be fine), RFC1864 (Content-MD5) and RFC2617 (http auth).

Best regards, Julian

PS: yes, the doc still contains references to obsoleted material, but we 
haven't been exactly fast in working on these...
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 09:25:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT