[rfc-i] BCP 35 and BCP 115 and Auth48 and clerical errors

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Tue Apr 14 21:43:31 PDT 2015


BCP 35 was RFC 2717 (procedure for registering schemes) while RFC 2718 was Informational (Guidelines for new URL Schemes).

RFC 4395 obsoleted both 2717 and 2718, but got assigned BCP 115. Later (I forget the exact circumstances) RFC 4395 was made to also be BCP 35, but RFC 4395 still says it is BCP 115.

I think the situation is confusing and there is no explanation for someone just looking.

draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg will obsolete RFC 4395.

Having two BCPs point to the SAME document is a problem.

Pick ONE of BCP 35 and BCP 115 as the right BCP number for the new RFC. (I’d pick BCP 35).  Replace the other one (BCP 115) with a note explaining the situation and refer people instead to the ‘right’ number (BCP 35).

How could this have been prevented? Should the Obsoletes: RFC nnnn (if approved) include BCP numbers or STD numbers so reviewers can double check?

Larry
—
http://larry.masinter.net




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list