John C Klensin wrote:
Just my opinion.
+1
Deprecating RFC 2026 section by section until nothing is left,
or the rest is simple, is a good strategy. Brian's "dispute"
I-D would eliminate another big part of RFC 2026.
Paul's updates of RFC 1738 together with RFCs 3986 and 2396
are an example how this might finally work, about six more
URI schemes, and RFC 1738 can be buried with all honours.
This could be also a strategy for RFC 2821. I'm firmly in
the "getting it right in less than three steps is inhuman"
camp, but for say RFC 4234, what's missing ? There are no
pending errata I'm aware of, one CrLf objection has merits,
but it would be a huge mistake in practice, and the other
objection wrt sticky ABNF comments is "nice to have", but
no fundamental issue.
Can I now just send a mail to the IESG asking them to move
RFC 4234 to STD, or does this require a dummy I-D to create
a tracker token ?
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf