From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 20:27:17 CDT
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> It is updated (the new text has been approved in november 2005), just
> not yet issued. And it deals with script codes.
>
> The new text:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt
>
> Its status in the RFC editor queue:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-ltru-registry
Adraft is not approved as long as it is a draft; the draft is still a request for comments, meaning that corrections (including additions and deletions) are still possible.
I don't know the tricky details about the change of status, but I think that the approval by IETF is not enough, and that a long period of external review, plus possibly other supports is needed (by the IESG or CIE and some other standard bodies like the IEEE, and possibly some quorum of national standard bodies like ANSI, AFOR or DIN, or a selection of large Internet software vendors or consortiums?)
For now I see "draft", and nothing linked from the BCP standard numbers. What is worse, is that the status of the draft is now "expired" since April 17, 2006, so the draft is no longer a good reference. It will require a new update or approval as a numbered RFC or BCP. It also says "Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved)", so explicitly, it says it was still not approved since the Philipps-Davis published that tentative text in 2005.
Looking at the RFC editor, RFC 3066 is still not obsoleted, and is also BCP 47 (the strongest status for RFCs). Who can currently break the rules of a BCP in an existing working implementation, without immediately breaking them and taking the risk of being non conforming, just because one would adhere to a now expired draft?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 24 2006 - 20:30:18 CDT