W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

RE: RFC 4395 should replace BCP 35, not separate BCP

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:43:37 -0500
To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Ted Hardie'" <hardie@qualcomm.com>, iana@iana.org, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <ldusseault@commerce.net>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "'RFC Editor'" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "'Tony Hansen'" <tony@att.com>, uri@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF294BAB9B.808D39A1-ON8525754B.004B1C70-8525754B.004B6813@lotus.com>

Larry Masinter writes:

> 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?

Indeed.  I believe it was just that misunderstanding that caused me to 
reference RFC 2717 in the draft of the TAG finding on Self-describing Web. 
 Frankly, as one who has read RFCs for years, but has never been part of 
the inner circle who writes them, I was baffled to receive the critique 
that the draft should be changed because "RFC 3986 doesn't reference RFC 
2717", when it was in fact in the above referenced biblo entry that I 
found out about the role of RFC 2717.  So, if you're implicitly suggesting 
that a better way be found to set out such references in future RFCs, I'm 
all for it.  Certainly, I misunderstood what was intended.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 13:44:31 UTC

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