Re: RFC 3143

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Well, 3143 is Informational, and IIRC it was considered as a way to 
> collect industry / community experience at that point in time, not an 
> authoritative list of errata, etc.
> 
> I would treat it as an input document to this work, not necessarily 
> something we have to correct, refute, or harmonise with. If we're 
> interested in correcting other existing documents, I think BCP56 is more 
> important than this one...

It is.

On the other hand, advice like "you can't use extension methods because 
of a proxy requirement in RFC 2616" should be corrected. Does anybody 
recall the background of that? 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143#section-2.2.2>)?

BR, Julian