Hi,
I'd like to see the concept of an RFC "updating" another RFC clarified.
Currently the draft says:
Updates
Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
augmented by the new document. The new document cannot be
used alone, it can o
Please,please learn some basic knowledge about search engine.
Now we are discussing the search engine, one of most important services of
Internet.
Asking for advices is first step, then a work group may be proposed. So
don't worry about where we discuss this issue.
>without looking into DRIS
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:14:54 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The second statement seems to be misleading. For instance, RFC2396 (URI
> syntax) updates previous RFCs that also contained specific URI scheme
> descriptions (such as "ftp"). Thus, it doesn't obsolete them. However,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:14:54 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
The second statement seems to be misleading. For instance, RFC2396 (URI
syntax) updates previous RFCs that also contained specific URI scheme
descriptions (such as "ftp"). Thus, it doesn't ob
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:38:34 +0100, Julian Reschke said:
> Not at all. IMHO the situation is as follows: RFC2396 completely
> replaces all previous definitions of URI syntax and resolution
> (including the syntax for relative URI references).
>
> However, previous documents *also* contained def
Julian,
Hi. I believe that the problem your pointing out is real, common, and
not so easy to solve.
First, you might regard the given definition of Updates as a
"best-effort" definition, with all that "best-effort" implies. ;-) I
am sure that serious suggestions on a more precise definition w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.. I'm obviously caffeine-deficient today. ;)
I see what you mean now, I had it 100% backwards. ;) And yes, there's a buglet
in the wording, but I'm not sure how to fix it for what is probably a special
case. I'm pretty sure that it's relatively rare for an updating RF
Bob Braden wrote:
Julian,
Hi. I believe that the problem your pointing out is real, common, and
not so easy to solve.
First, you might regard the given definition of Updates as a
"best-effort" definition, with all that "best-effort" implies. ;-) I
am sure that serious suggestions on a more pre
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:43:23 +0100, Julian Reschke said:
> Well, I was asking because we (the WebDAV working group) are just now
> discussing a similar issue. We've got a new spec (the BIND protocol)
> which updates parts of RFC2518 and RFC3253, and thus we'd like the RFC
> Index to have "forwa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:43:23 +0100, Julian Reschke said:
Well, I was asking because we (the WebDAV working group) are just now
discussing a similar issue. We've got a new spec (the BIND protocol)
which updates parts of RFC2518 and RFC3253, and thus we'd like the RFC
I
[A copy will be posted on the ietf-announce list sometime soon.]
The Internet Society (ISOC) provides organizational and financial
support for the IETF. As part of the arrangements between ISOC and the
IETF, the IETF is called upon to name 3 Trustees to its Board (BoT),
with staggered 3 year terms
11 matches
Mail list logo
