This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 27039 - Replace references to RFC 2388 with RFC XXXX based on draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-05.txt
Summary: Replace references to RFC 2388 with RFC XXXX based on draft-ietf-appsawg-mul...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P3 editorial
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-10-13 23:49 UTC by Larry Masinter
Modified: 2015-06-17 03:34 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Larry Masinter 2014-10-13 23:49:06 UTC
This requires a little more coordination. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-05
went through Working Group Last Call in the IETF applications area working group without much review. (Only comments were typos, now fixed).

It needs IETF last call for final approval.

Please review, and then update HTML:

I think for the most part you can replace RFC 2388 with
 RFC XXXX based on draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-05.txt

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#multipart-form-data 

and then update the reference once final approval and assignment of
RFC number.
Comment 1 Robin Berjon 2014-10-14 09:48:56 UTC
I don't quite understand — it seems to me that we shouldn't update to "RFC XXXX", that's a bit... provisional. We can certainly update the next gen draft when the number is assigned.
Comment 2 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-06-17 03:34:04 UTC
No response to comment 1 so moving to resolved=wontfix for now. I don't think we can get agreement to put a literal "RFC XXX" in the References section, nor do I believe most people would say we should.

The right thing to do here would seem to be to wait until we actually have a new RFC that replaces RFC 2388, then open a new bug for that.