W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:54:43 +0200
Message-ID: <435D11D3.7030905@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I had assumed that removing opaquelocktoken from RFC2518bis would leave 
> it registered because it would remain registered in RFC2518. The BCP on 
> registering schemes (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/bcp/bcp35.txt) 
> doesn't say much on obsoleting schemes in STD track documents. The 
> registration page doesn't show any info about obsoleted or historic 
> schemes (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes). However, it does 
> show several schemes (fax, modem) that were defined in an obsoleted RFC 
> (2806) and not redefined in the new RFC (3966).
> 
> Thus I conclude that leaving mention of opaquelocktoken out of 
> RFC2518bis would not lose its registration. Does that change any opinions?

Not yet. It may mean that I'm wrong, but it can also mean that IANA just 
forgot (did anybody tell them). Thus, those who want to take it out 
should please make sure that this doesn't have the effect of 
unregistering the scheme, for instance by asking the AD.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 16:55:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:10 GMT