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 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 unpublished draft at the moment.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. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf