Re: [Mutt] #1611: mutt erroneously omits information in parenthesis
On 2009-06-21 09:01:24 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> A proposed standard is just that: proposed. It is not a standard
> until it is *accepted* and "elevated" by the IETF. Proposed, Draft,
> and Internet Standards are 3 levels of maturity of specifications
> written with the *intent* of becoming standards (i.e. Internet
> Standards).
This is just a matter of wording. Even though a "Proposed Standard"
is not yet an "Internet Standard", it is official enough to be seen
as a standard within the IETF. Even RFC 2045 (MIME) is only a draft
standard.
> A proposed standard is expected to change, as is a draft standard
> (though to lesser degree).
Well, in such a case, it is obsoleted by a {proposed,draft,Internet}
standard (another RFC). But this is also true for Internet standards,
RFC 822 for instance.
> You can assume that, at least when *I* say it, "standard" means
> Internet Standard. I was incorrect about one thing though; RFC 733 is
> not a standard. RFC 822 is (STD 11).
I wonder whether an obsolete specification is still regarded as a
standard by the IETF. For the ISO or IEEE, it would no longer be a
standard.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)