- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:33:56 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> ... >>> An RFC can be moved to "Historic" status (the formal term for >>> "obsolete") without the need for a superseding RFC. See RFC2026 "The >>> Internet Standards Process", particularly sections 4.2.4 and 6.4. >>> ... >> >> It needs a Standards Action. >> >> I'm in the process of doing this with RFC 2731, asked the IESG for >> advice, and got the recommendation to draft a document that would >> replace RFC 2731. > > Would you be willing to ask the IESG for advice on RFC 2854, in light of > HTML5 containing an updated registration? Perhaps their opinion will be > different, or perhaps not, in which case someone needs to draft a > superseding document. I'll do that once we have made a decision not to simply revise RFC 2854, which seems to be by far the simplest approach. BR, Julian PS: and yes, if we want to do that, and Dan and Larry are ok with that, I'd do the editorial work on it.
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:34:41 UTC