W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

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

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:44:11 -0500
Message-ID: <497E3CBB.2050806@att.com>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>, "iana@iana.org" <iana@iana.org>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)" <hardie@qualcomm.com>

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 Monday, 26 January 2009 22:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:11 GMT