This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings


--On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:

  Yes, you're right.  Looking at the history, it's never made it to the
status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually
one stage more advanced than an RFC):

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-
to-00.txt


To quote RFC2026:


2.2 Internet-Drafts

  During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
  document are made available for informal review and comment by
  placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
  replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
  working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
  the process of review and revision.

  An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
  unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
  without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
  simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.  At any time, an
  Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same
  specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.

  An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
  specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
  the previous section.  Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
  subject to change or removal at any time.

     ********************************************************
     *                                                      *
     *   Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft    *
     *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-    *
     *   for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
     *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
     *                                                      *
     ********************************************************


That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may eventually turn into an RFC. On the subject of expiry:


draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
Expires: May 1998

It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned.

--
Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP.
========================================================
Hewlett-Packard Limited.   Registered No: 690597 England
Registered Office:  Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]