Subject: #1156 Header field registrations

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:15:48 -0700

I think the last bits that need to be nailed are:

- Use "obsoleted" for all fields that we have deprecated or declared 
obsolete elsewhere in the document - simply because we don't want to 
invent new words.

- Add RFC 850 to informative references.

- Author/change controller is "IETF" for all the fields; no matter where 
they came from originally, the IETF is now the one that makes statements 
about them (even when that statement is "obsoleted".

OK?

(I have 20 min before a meeting, and am trying to use it to nail a few 
USEFOR tickets)

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:13:04 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
 
> "obsoleted" for all fields that we have deprecated
[...]
> Add RFC 850 to informative references.
[...]
> OK?

+ RFC 2980 for NNTP-Posting-Host.  Keep "deprecated" for 
Lines: as is because it's only deprecated, not obsoleted.

Maybe update your netnews page, the NNTP part is ready ;-)

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:35:06 -0700

> Lines: as is because it's only deprecated, not obsoleted.
OK.
> Maybe update your netnews page, the NNTP part is ready ;-)
once I get a round tuit :-)

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:29:49 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> once I get a round tuit

dict.leo.org + MW + dict.org (incl. jargon file 2001): fail,
google + wikipedia: pass.  That could be a nice application
for the "IONs", transform various terminology RFCs into IONs:

Collect terms, approval => add to ION, and from time to time
publish it as updated RFC.  The "most popular" ABNF terms
could be also collected, to simplify references / recycling.

Or the xml2rfc "bibxml" collection - the part with anything
that's neither RFC nor I-D, e.g. the updated 3166 reference -
if somebody gets a round tuit this probably works like "send
XML snippet to Marshal".

Frank