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/http-errata
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 be
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, because, as
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 in
It is still unclear to me what the proposed course of action is.
The current situation is not acceptable. HTTP is by any rational definition a
standard. Yet according to the process document it is merely a draft standard.
I therefore declare the process document to be a silly thing which is
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
