- From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:49:50 -0500
- To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- CC: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'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>
Thank you! Tony RFC Editor wrote: > Greetings All, > > Since you have approved this path forward, we have retired BCP 115, > linked RFC 4395 to BCP 35, and added an erratum to reflect that the > header of RFC 4395 should say BCP 35, not BCP 135. > > Please let us know if you come across any errors. > > Thanks! > > RFC Editor > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:46:32PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: >> At 6:39 PM -0800 1/26/09, Larry Masinter wrote: >>> Sounds good to me. >>> >>> I suppose someone looking at RFC 3986 coming across: >>> >>> [BCP35] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL >>> Scheme Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999. >>> >>> might not know to go to the *current* BCP 35 and not the RFC 2717 version? >>> >>> Larry >>> -- >>> http://larry.masinter.net >> Works for me as well. >> Ted >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >>> Tony Hansen >>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:34 PM >>> To: RFC Editor >>> Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Larry Masinter; Lisa Dusseault; iana@iana.org; >>> uri@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org; Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com) >>> Subject: Re: RFC 4395 should replace BCP 35, not separate BCP >>> >>> >>> 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 Thursday, 29 January 2009 19:50:37 UTC