Re: Comments on draft-eastlake-additional-xmlsec-uris-07.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Heather,
At 11:00 07-02-2013, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
The format for the reference is what the RFC Editor suggests, but it
hasn't been properly documented yet.  There is still open discussion
about what the appropriate URL should be which in turn impacts that part
of the reference.  Having errata as normative references does not seem
like a good idea to me, so I'm glad to see it has been shifted to an
informative reference.  I admit, I am unclear what you mean by turning
Standard Track RFCs in to "living" standards; think the process for
updating RFCs as new information is developed by creating new RFCs to
update or obsolete the older ones is a perfectly reasonable approach.

It does not matter that the format for the reference has not been properly documented as long as you know about it as I know about it. :-)

There was a discussion about errata in September 2008. The RFC Editor posted a message about errata. If I am not mistaken the original idea wasn't about having an erratum as a reference. I suggest having a discussion on the relevant mailing list about whether they should be used a references.

There is a message which mentions "living" standard at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75085.html and the W3C angle at http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/09/the_flowing_standard.html

This has been an area of personal confusion for me as I try to
understand IETF culture, but I'll leave discussing it to a bar BoF or
something.

Well, BoFs are meetings in disguise, bar BoFs are the real BoFs. :-) IETF culture is confusing for me too. It is a bit about extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers.

Regards,
-sm


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]