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 you say for SMTP
below, look in your browser. It's what's there and it clearly works for
a vast number of applications, as opposed to SNMPv3, which has barely
been deployed compared to v1, and yet it is a full standard.
The obsolete version of SMTP is considered 'standard'.
For the state of the actual SMTP look into your inbox.
It also has a lot of errata, some only collected in an
unpublished draft at the moment.
I would also be curious as to what the errata here are. Long hard work
went into 2821 to correct known problems. Not saying that something
wasn't missed, but I'd be curious as to what it is.
Procedural improvements could start with the "errata"
procedure, it's a bit slow. Obvious typos submitted by
an original author shouldn't take two years.
Or another "decruft" experiment, that worked well. One
of the submitted pending errata mentioned several RFCs
which could now be moved to "historic", because they
depend on RFCs cleaned up in the first "decruft" round.
Define "depend", please.
Ietf mailing list