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

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

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:49:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4982085E.6090906@att.com>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'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>

Thank you!

	Tony

RFC Editor wrote:
> Greetings All,
> 
> Since you have approved this path forward, we have retired BCP 115,
> linked RFC 4395 to BCP 35, and added an  erratum to reflect that the
> header of RFC 4395 should say BCP 35, not BCP 135.
> 
> Please let us know if you come across any errors.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:46:32PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 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 Thursday, 29 January 2009 19:50:37 GMT

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