At 10:07 03/05/04 +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20040430145623(_dot_)025c0938(_at_)127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1> Graham Klyne
<gk(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org> writes:
>In response to an off-list comment, I'm making a small revision of the mail
>message header registry draft [1] to mark header fields defined in RFC822
>(as well as RFC2822) as standard rather than just "standards-track". This
>raised two questions:
But this does raise the question of a header that was defined in some
standard (say RFC 822) and subsequently changed in some significant manner
by a later standards-track RFC that only achieved Proposed Standard (e.g.
RFC 2822). The difference might be such as to warrant a change in the
registry (e.g. the later document might explicitly obsolete or deprecate
it). You would then have to be careful to include references to both
documents, and maybe remove the "Standard" label.
I'll defer to any IETF process experts, but it seems fairly clear to me
that a standard stands until it is replaced. A Proposed or Draft standard
that updates a standard is a pretty clear statement of intent (and as such
is useful guidance to implementers), but does not replace an existing
standard until it becomes one itself.
In this case, I think what matters is what the community agrees should go
into the registry.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact