- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:40:37 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 10/24/05 9:54 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> I had assumed that removing opaquelocktoken from RFC2518bis would leave >> it registered because it would remain registered in RFC2518. The BCP on >> registering schemes (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/bcp/bcp35.txt) >> doesn't say much on obsoleting schemes in STD track documents. The >> registration page doesn't show any info about obsoleted or historic >> schemes (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes). However, it does >> show several schemes (fax, modem) that were defined in an obsoleted RFC >> (2806) and not redefined in the new RFC (3966). >> >> Thus I conclude that leaving mention of opaquelocktoken out of >> RFC2518bis would not lose its registration. Does that change any opinions? > > Not yet. It may mean that I'm wrong, but it can also mean that IANA just > forgot (did anybody tell them). Thus, those who want to take it out > should please make sure that this doesn't have the effect of > unregistering the scheme, for instance by asking the AD. > > Best regards, Julian Taking it out would not remove the registration or in any way stop it from being used. We can get AD to confirm if you would like but I'm fairly confident on this. (As a side note, if you put text like "it MUST NOT be used" then it would limit it use but still not remove the registration from IANA. I don't think anyone is suggesting adding text like this that would limit its use) Cullen
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 03:40:48 UTC