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 Monday, 26 January 2009 22:45:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:26 UTC