 |
 |
FYI: I have now submitted this as a first Internet Draft (<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-00.txt>), and wait for more feedback for the next week. Best regards, Julian Julian Reschke wrote: > Pete Johnston wrote: >> Hi Julian, >> I do think this is the message we want to convey, and if the most >> appropriate way of conveying it is to obsolete the RFC, I would support >> this approach. >> >> If I understand the procedure correctly, the proposed draft text would >> take the form of a new RFC (number to be determined), referring back to >> RFC 2731, and the text of RFC 2731 would remain in place, with the >> addition of an indication that its status was "Historic" and that it had >> been obsoleted by the new doc? Have I got that right, Julian? > > Almost. > > Except: the actual text of RFC 2731 would not change, but the new > status, and the link to the new document would appear in the RFC > Editor's database (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html>). Pages that use > that metadata, such as <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2731>, then will > indeed include the updated information. > >> Re the proposed text, I notice it makes a point of mentioning the >> profile attribute as a new requirement. There are some other areas where >> the conventions diverge (e.g. the use of name values like >> "DC.date.created"), but I'm not sure that the new text needs to list >> them all. > > I added this one because it's my understanding that a RFC2731 conforming > page *minimally* needs to add the profile value to conform to DC-HTML. > If there are other changes similar to that, please let me know. > >> ... > > BR, Julian >