Gaurav Vaish wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Informational RFC".
I'm also not sure, but you got me... :-) RfC 2229 is "only"
an informational RfC, and I don't know who could update or
replace it without the consent of the original authors.
The copyright statement apparently allows to create an Internet
standard derived from RfC 2229, but IANAL and still trying to
figure out how the "normal" IETF standards process works.
can I directly put up an I-D?
Yes, you can publish your ideas as I-D. One way to create an
I-D is <http://xml.resource.org/>, if you like XML for this
purpose. Otherwise you could still use its "A. Mouse" demo to
get a valid template.
Hmm... that's pretty new one.
It's a standard, you can't ignore it. The old dict: scheme
was registered because it was a "grandfathered" case, IANA had
the dict port in their port registry, but not the dict URL in
their URL registry, now that's fixed.
A lot of drafts try to salvage old 1738 schemes like gopher:,
file:, ftp:, news:, etc., because they want to get rid of the
old 1738 a.s.a.p. So far wais: and prospero: are declared to
be "historic". The worst case is RfC 2368 mailto:, see also
for an idea how to attack this problem. For details with the
other schemes see the W3C URI list (despite its name it's more
an IETF list).
Not worse than ftp:, news:, or nntp: for the "authority" part.
not sure if I'm making some sense here.
Don't mention UTF-7, you get it if you want all MIME compatible
charsets. there's no reason to mention it explicitly. <gd&r>
Ietf mailing list