- From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:34:26 -0500
- To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>, "iana@iana.org" <iana@iana.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)" <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Thanks! I think this would do the trick. Larry? Tony RFC Editor wrote: > Hi Lisa and Tony, > > We propose to retire BCP 115, link RFC 4395 to BCP 35, and add an > erratum to reflect that the header of RFC 4395 should say BCP 35, not > BCP 135. > > We will proceed unles we hear any objections. > > Thanks, > > RFC Editor > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:44:11PM -0500, Tony Hansen wrote: >> No one has responded. It seems like an issue that the RFC editor should >> be able to resolve without resorting to place holder RFCs. >> >> Tony >> >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:35:21 UTC