W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > June 2003

Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:36 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 12:42 PM 6/25/03 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > In fact, our resolution of the 2nd part of LC-67 suggests that W3C needs an
> > update or supplement of RFC2119, at least giving more generally useful
> > guidance on the use of RFC2119 keywords in W3C standards.
> >
> > See draft Resolution of LC-67 2nd part [1].
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x67
>Yes, I noticed that resolution when it was posted. How can I help to
>work on an update to RFC 2119 that will make both IETF and W3C happy,
>with the intent to eventually obsolete RFC 2119? Or does W3C prefer
>not to update RFC 2119 but to issue a parallel Note instead? In other
>words, what is the next step?

I think it would probably be some liaison with Comm, to make a plan.

That would happen after QAWG generates and approves its Disposal of 
Comments for SpecGL (pending), and negotiates the acceptability of same 
with comment originators.  This will happen over the next few weeks.  Stay 
tuned (it will be visible variously on the IG list, the WG list, and/or in 
the MonthInQA).

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 15:15:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC