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/p3-payload.xml

    r1472 r1477  
    5555<?rfc-ext allow-markup-in-artwork="yes" ?>
    5656<?rfc-ext include-references-in-index="yes" ?>
    57 <rfc obsoletes="2616" category="std" x:maturity-level="draft"
     57<rfc obsoletes="2616" category="std" x:maturity-level="proposed"
    5858     ipr="pre5378Trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-&ID-VERSION;"
    5959     xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>
     
    18871887  </front>
    18881888  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1950"/>
    1889   <annotation>
     1889  <!--<annotation>
    18901890    RFC 1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    18911891    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    18931893    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    18941894    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    1895   </annotation>
     1895  </annotation>-->
    18961896</reference>
    18971897
     
    19061906  </front>
    19071907  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1951"/>
    1908   <annotation>
     1908  <!--<annotation>
    19091909    RFC 1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    19101910    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    19121912    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    19131913    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    1914   </annotation>
     1914  </annotation>-->
    19151915</reference>
    19161916
     
    19371937  </front>
    19381938  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1952"/>
    1939   <annotation>
     1939  <!--<annotation>
    19401940    RFC 1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it might be less stable than
    19411941    this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference was
     
    19431943    therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also
    19441944    <xref target="BCP97"/>.
    1945   </annotation>
     1945  </annotation>-->
    19461946</reference>
    19471947
     
    23222322</reference>
    23232323
    2324 <reference anchor='BCP97'>
     2324<!--<reference anchor='BCP97'>
    23252325  <front>
    23262326    <title>Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents</title>
     
    23402340  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='97' />
    23412341  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4897' />
    2342 </reference>
     2342</reference>-->
    23432343
    23442344<reference anchor="RFC6266">
     
    27562756      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68"/>:
    27572757      "Encoding References Normative" &mdash; rephrase the annotation and reference
    2758       <xref target="BCP97"/>.
     2758      BCP97.
    27592759    </t>
    27602760  </list>
     
    30673067<section title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17" anchor="changes.since.17">
    30683068<t>
    3069   No changes yet.
     3069  Closed issues:
     3070  <list style="symbols">
     3071    <t>
     3072      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/323"/>:
     3073      "intended maturity level vs normative references"
     3074    </t>
     3075  </list>
    30703076</t>
    30713077</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.