This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings
- From: Owen Rees <owen dot rees at hp dot com>
- To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:04:34 +0000
- Subject: Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings
- References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> <49ADEF5E.3060804@columbus.rr.com> <49ADF5B5.5000102@gmail.com> <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> <49AE6F03.5040003@gmail.com> <980E7CF9434CB68895B336D3@orees.hpl.hp.com> <49AEAECD.5030506@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
--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