Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 14, 2011, 2:27:42 AM (8 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

Target maturity level is 'proposed', no need to discuss RFC1950-2 as downrefs (see #323)

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml

    r1476 r1477  
    5555<?rfc-ext allow-markup-in-artwork="yes" ?>
    5656<?rfc-ext include-references-in-index="yes" ?>
    57 <rfc obsoletes="2145,2616" updates="2817" category="std" x:maturity-level="draft"
     57<rfc obsoletes="2145,2616" updates="2817" category="std" x:maturity-level="proposed"
    5858     ipr="pre5378Trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-&ID-VERSION;"
    5959     xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>
     
    43254325  </front>
    43264326  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1950"/>
    4327   <annotation>
     4327  <!--<annotation>
    43284328    RFC 1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    43294329    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    43314331    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    43324332    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    4333   </annotation>
     4333  </annotation>-->
    43344334</reference>
    43354335
     
    43444344  </front>
    43454345  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1951"/>
    4346   <annotation>
     4346  <!--<annotation>
    43474347    RFC 1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    43484348    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    43504350    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    43514351    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    4352   </annotation>
     4352  </annotation>-->
    43534353</reference>
    43544354
     
    43754375  </front>
    43764376  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1952"/>
    4377   <annotation>
     4377  <!--<annotation>
    43784378    RFC 1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    43794379    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    43814381    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    43824382    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    4383   </annotation>
     4383  </annotation>-->
    43844384</reference>
    43854385
     
    47534753</reference>
    47544754
    4755 <reference anchor='BCP97'>
     4755<!--<reference anchor='BCP97'>
    47564756  <front>
    47574757    <title>Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents</title>
     
    47714771  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='97' />
    47724772  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4897' />
    4773 </reference>
     4773</reference>-->
    47744774
    47754775<reference anchor="Kri2001" target="http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.SE/0105018">
     
    58685868      "Define non-final responses"
    58695869    </t>
     5870    <t>
     5871      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/323"/>:
     5872      "intended maturity level vs normative references"
     5873    </t>
    58705874  </list>
    58715875</t>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.