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

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

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:46:32 -0800
Message-ID: <p06240802c5a4340f87a0@[10.0.1.195]>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Tony Hansen'" <tony@att.com>, "'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>

At 6:39 PM -0800 1/26/09, Larry Masinter wrote:
>Sounds good to me.
>
>I suppose someone looking at RFC 3986 coming across:
>
>   [BCP35]    Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL
>              Scheme Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999.
>
>might not know to go to the *current* BCP 35 and not the RFC 2717 version?
>
>Larry
>--
>http://larry.masinter.net

Works for me as well.
			Ted


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>Tony Hansen
>Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:34 PM
>To: RFC Editor
>Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Larry Masinter; Lisa Dusseault; iana@iana.org;
>uri@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org; Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)
>Subject: Re: RFC 4395 should replace BCP 35, not separate BCP
>
>
>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 03:47:28 GMT

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