- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:32:17 +0200
- To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
- CC: uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > As previously pointed out, there are some errors in RFC 4622. I have > attempted to correct them here: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt > > No one has told me there are errors in rfc4622bis, but since Roy > Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the > standards track [1] I want to make sure that my attempted corrections > are indeed correct. > > Unless I receive feedback that rfc4622bis does not fix the problems with > RFC 4622, I will assume that it does, complete another pass through the > document to ensure that it is as correct as I can make it, then request > a standards action from the appropriate AD. > > Thanks! (1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are. (2) Independently of that, a diff to RFC4622 would be useful, such as in <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>. (3) <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00#section-3.8> says: "See Section 5 of RFC 4622, Security Considerations." There may be other instances like that. (4) Front matter should say: "Obsoletes: 4622". Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 18:32:34 UTC