Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme

[Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <[e-mail]>]

I've updated
http://draft-icon-uri-scheme.googlecode.com/hg/draft-lafayette-icon-uri-scheme-00.html
to
not use RFC 1738.

On another note, how do I resolve the following warning?

*idnits 2.12.02*
*
*
*draft-lafayette-icon-uri-scheme-00.txt:*
*
*
*  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see*
*  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):*
*
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
*
*
*  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice
from 12*
*     Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See*
*     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)*

I'm using xml2rfc to generate the documents from
http://draft-icon-uri-scheme.googlecode.com/hg/draft-lafayette-icon-uri-scheme.xml
.

Thanks.

On 15 April 2010 16:59, Alfred HÎnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ira McDonald wrote:
>
> > For the 'file:' URI scheme, RFC 1738 *is* the correct normative
> reference.
> >
> > Note that RFC 1738 is NOT obsoleted but is only updated by RFC 3986
> > - its current status is Proposed Standard, according to the RFC Index at:
> >
> >   http://www.ietf.org/download/rfc-index.txt
>
> No -- please pay attention!
> The rfc-index.txt file does *not* show the current status.
> The "status" shown there does _not_ change when a RFC is obsoleted.
> RFC 1738 is no more listed in rfcxx00.txt (or its html version).
>
> So yes, RFC 1738 _is_ formally Obsoleted by RFC 4248 and RFC 4266 so far;
> RFC-to-be 5538 -- still in AUTH48 -- will again Obsolete RFC 1738
> (for details, see  <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/auth48/rfc5538> ).
>
> Avoiding Normative References to 1738 if possible seems the best strategy.
>
> After the publication of RFC 5538, there will still remain two open
> 'gaps' due to the obsolescence: the 'ftp' and 'file' URI schemes are
> left without a current, non-obsoleted specification.
>
> I'm already working on a new draft for the 'ftp' URI scheme.
> The -00 should be out soon, most likely early in May.
>
>
> > The ABNF for the 'file:' URI scheme is only specified in RFC 1738 (and a
> > 5-year-old expired ID by Paul Hoffman).
> >
> > The 'file:' URI scheme is ubiquitously supported (*not* in an
> interoperable
> > fashion) by web browsers and operating systems.  The lack of a modern
> > reference RFC is a sore point for many standards developers.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Ira
>
> Any author taking on the 'file' URI scheme project would be welcome.
> (Apps AD Alexey Melnikov has encouraged me for the 'ftp' URI scheme
> work, and he's well aware of the other gap!)
>
> Kind regards,
>  Alfred.
>
> --
>
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>



-- 
Pierre.