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 19:34:26 -0500
Message-ID: <497E5692.5040203@att.com>
To: 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>, "Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)" <hardie@qualcomm.com>

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 00:35:18 GMT

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