At 21:32 27.09.99 -0400, Arjun Ray wrote:
RFC 1866 and RFC 2070 are Standards Track documents; it's my understanding
that action on such documents starts with the IETF, not from the outside
(Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026) While the W3C, as an industry consortium, is
free to to consider RFC 1866 "obsoleted" by its own later recommendations,
that doesn't make it so for the IETF or the Internet.
The IETF takes action when prodded, like most organizations.
The publication of an I-D is a means of starting an action with the IETF.
Perhaps this I-D should be aimed at an AS or BCP instead?
Actually, I don't understand why anyone needs this document at all.
The IETF needs a document it can point to when people ask "what is the
position of the IETF on HTML". The Standard Procedure to get such documents
done is to publish an RFC. So, you can say it's the IETF that needs it.
It might be an AS, but an AS is a standards-track document, and the whole
purpose of this process is getting HTML *off* the IETF standards track.
Harald
21 messages in org.w3.www-htmlRe: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-connolly-tex...
