I was quite surprised to discover that this message is not
in the mailing list archive, so I am repeating it.
A copy certainly reached the newtrk WG prior to
its closure.
Original Message
Subject: IETF Process discussions - next steps
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:41:47 +0200
From:
ge-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:17 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: [Fwd: IETF Process discussions - next steps]
>
> I was quite surprised to discover that this message is not in
> the mailing list archi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I was quite surprised to discover that this message is not
in the mailing list archive, so I am repeating it.
A copy certainly reached the newtrk WG prior to
its closure.
Original Message
Subject: IETF Process discussions - next steps
Date: Thu, 10 Aug
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> HTTP is by any rational definition a standard.
It's the only RFC I've heard of with outsourced errata.
It needs fixing to be published as full standard.
> The obsolete version of SMTP is considered 'standard'.
For the state of the actual SMTP look into your inbox
Frank,
>> HTTP is by any rational definition a standard.
>>
>
> It's the only RFC I've heard of with outsourced errata.
> It needs fixing to be published as full standard.
>
I don't know what this means and I would be curious as to what needs
"fixing" before it becomes a full standard, bec
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I would be curious as to what needs "fixing" before it
> becomes a full standard
The issues you find when you enter "2616" in the form at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html That sends you to
the outsourced http://purl.org/NET/http-errata
> as you say for SMTP below, look
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>
>> I would be curious as to what needs "fixing" before it
>> becomes a full standard
>>
>
> The issues you find when you enter "2616" in the form at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html That sends you to
> the outsourced http://purl.org/NET
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I now understand what you mean by outsourced.
Sorry if that was unclear, I meant "errata not maintained by
the RFC editor".
> Most of these comments are truly editorial in nature, but
> that happens with FULL standards as well.
Agree, but while it's no full standard it would
