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

Rfc 4365 says it is BCP 115, so 404 on BCP 115 is confusing.  

The story of what happened is only in email 

I'd say write up an explanation on rfc-editor.org site and make sure trying to access BCP 115 points to it.

Also the 'tools' actions on bcp115
Need fix up

--
http://larry.masinter.net

> On May 1, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza at amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Larry and Martin, 
> 
> Thank you for raising this issue and my apologies for the delayed reply.  Please see comments in-line.
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Martin J. D?rst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Larry, others,
>> 
>>> On 2015/04/15 13:43, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> There are BCP that consist of more than one RFC. The example I know is BCP 47 on Language Tagging (see e.g. http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt).
>> 
>> 
>>> 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).
>> 
>> This is already done if you look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp-index.html, which has:
>> 
>> BCP35    Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes T. Hansen, T. Hardie, L. Masinter [ February 2006 ] (TXT = 31933 bytes)(Obsoletes RFC2717, RFC2718) (Also RFC4395) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> BCP115    [BCP number 115 is retired. It was mistakenly assigned to RFC 4395. RFC 4395 is BCP 35.] [ ] (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)
> 
> 
> RFC 4395 was mistakenly marked as BCP 115.  As Martin noted, we have corrected the BCP index to indicate that RFC 4395 is BCP 35; BCP 115 has been retired.  In addition, the search engine results produce only existing BCPs, which means that users will find BCP 35 but not 115.
> 
> 
>>> Replace the other one (BCP 115) with a note explaining the situation and refer people instead to the ?right? number (BCP 35).
>> 
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp115.txt currently returns a 404, this could indeed be improved.
> 
> We believe 404 is accurate, because the file does not exist for BCP numbers that have been retired.
> 
>> 
>>> How could this have been prevented? Should the Obsoletes: RFC nnnn (if approved) include BCP numbers or STD numbers so reviewers can double check?
>> 
>> Yes, having obsoletes listing BCPs might help.
> 
> You may add this information to the doc header if you want, but it will be removed before the document is published. Also, note that the RFC Editor has learned from this earlier mistake ? an RFC being published as a BCP or STD is evaluated to determine whether it fits within an existing BCP or STD identifier and the RFC Editor requests author/IESG guidance to ensure the BCP or STD assignment is correct.
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions for better handling.
> 
> Thank you,
> Sandy 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,   Martin.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 