Re: RFC 2152 - UTF-7 clarification

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/15 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> RFC 2152 may be informational, but it is normatively referenced
>> from a standards-track document.
> (which one?)
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2152/referencedby/
>
> well, that makes a mockery of the whole informational/standards-track distinction.
>
> The RFC Editor errata process is really just for determining (formally) if there is an error.
> After that, it can be pretty open; and community consensus is not formal.
>
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 12:29 AM
> To: Wood L  Dr (Elec Electronic Eng); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: RFC 2152 - UTF-7 clarification
>
> --On Thursday, October 08, 2015 06:01 +0000 [e-mail]
> wrote:
>
>> The best place to raise this erratum for formal consideration
>> would be https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php
> Actually, Lloyd, probably not.  RFC 2152 may be informational,
> but it is normatively referenced from a standards-track
> document.  If an alteration or clarification to its definition
> is required, the fix really ought to have community consensus
> and the RFC errata process is not at all good for that.  Those
> who are interested in ITF-7 and its applicability may want to
> see the related discussion on the apps-discuss list.
>
>      john
>
>