Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt

On 2012-03-13 08:53, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Julian,
>
> On 2012/03/12 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> References check...:
>
> Is that your private tool, or something available online?

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references>

>>> Normative References:
>>> ASCII: not checked
>>> ISO10646: not checked
>>> RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014) ok
>>> RFC3491: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5891
>
> This is cited in a context where RFC5891 woudldn't be appropriate.
>
>>> RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok
>>> RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066) ok
>>> RFC5890: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC5891: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC5892: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC5234: [STANDARD] (-> STD0068) ok
>>> UNIV6: not checked
>>> UTR15: not checked
>>>
>>> Informative References:
>>> draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02: [2012-03-09 ID-Exists] ok
>>> Candidate Recommendation: document unknown
>
> We seem to be using both "Recommendation/Note/..." and more explicit
> labels (e.g. REC-xmlschema-2-20041028) in the value attribute for
> <seriesInfo name="World Wide Web Consortium". Which one is right?

I recommend the format I use in

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html>

>>> Duerst97: not checked
>
> That's currently in limbo, I have to make sure it's accessible again. I
> have opened http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/120 for this.
>
>>> draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01: [2012-03-02 IESG] ok
>>> Gettys: not checked
>>> Recommendation: document unknown
>>> RFC2130: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
>>> RFC2141: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC2192: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5092
>>> RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok
>>> RFC2384: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
>>> RFC2397: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC2640: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03: Alternate version available: 04
>
> Fixed in subversion with revision 108
> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/browser/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis?rev=108)
>
>
>>> RFC5122: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> RFC6055: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
>>> RFC6068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
>>> UNIXML: not checked
>>> UTR36: not checked
>>> REC-xlink-20010627: [REC] ok
>>> REC-xml-20081116: document unknown
>>> REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok
>>> REC-xptr-framework-20030325: [REC] ok
>>
>> Note the warning for XML; the proper id is REC-xml-20081126.
>
> Fixed in subversion with revision 108 (see above). Actually, that string
> was correct before revision 102, but it was listed as the Forth Edition
> with a date in 2006. When I fixed that, thought I had to fix the id,
> too, and made a typo.

Yes, that's how things happen :-)

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 16:10:49 UTC