W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2009

Re: RFC 4395 should replace BCP 35, not separate BCP

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:32:13 -0800
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0901261432q1b76330foa23b20a9c0da5b41@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>, "iana@iana.org" <iana@iana.org>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)" <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Was any action item ever taken for this?  Honestly I do not know how to fix
what RFC points at what BCP or vice versa.  RFC Editor, can you tell me if
somebody outside the RFC Editor organization needs to do something?

Thanks,
Lisa

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:

> We totally missed that, didn't we? Sigh.
>
> For (b), could the entry for BCP 115 be set somehow to point to 115
> without needing an RFC filler document?
>
>        Tony
>
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > RFC 4395   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395  explicitly obsoletes RFC
> > 2717 and RFC 2718.
> >
> > RFC 2717 is also listed as BCP 35.
> >
> > The intention was for RFC 4395 to become the updated BCP 35.
> >
> > Instead,  RFC 4395 was instead registered as BCP 115, and BCP 35 left
> > intact.
> >
> > This wasn't the intent, and the references as they stand make no sense.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the best way of correcting this situation is, but I
> > would suggest (a) updating BCP 35 to point to RFC 4395, and (b)
> > replacing BCP 115 with a note that it was assigned in error and to see
> > BCP 35.
> >
> > I suppose  a very short internet draft which explained this error and
> > made this proposal could be approved as a protocol action and used as
> > BCP 115.
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 22:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:41 GMT