+1
Leslie.
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 6:10 AM -0700 10/6/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document
to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in
Standards Tracks in the first place.
Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like
a waste of time to me.
Well, it has normative references to things that have been obsoleted
since and it doesn't use ABNF, so I *do* think it needs a minor freshup.
BR, Julian
Having reviewed a lot of URN nid requests over the years, I can't say
I've ever seen a syntax error that derives from 2141 using something other
than ABNF (which is *not* required, simply available). Following the
chains to the current version of the URI syntax etc. is also not that hard,
so I don't see the need for a change here. If you would like to see it
progress, I am sure I can help you find the requisite interoperable
implementations to report upon, but, honestly, it seems to be working
fine as-is.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf