|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards track RFC
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
T.813 describes the translation of binary image data to text data. T.813 allows the use of UTF-8 in the text format and IETF RFC 2279 describes this format. Thus IETF RFC 2279 is referenced.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2279
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence since January 1998. It has been superseded by RFC 3629 in November 2003.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 2279 was published in January 1998. It is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Draft Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
This RFC relates to the character set defined in ISO 10646. It supersedes RFC 2044 and has been superseded by RFC 3629 (November 2003)
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[CHARSET-REG] Freed, N., and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2278, January 1998./
[FSS_UTF] X/Open CAE Specification C501 ISBN 1-85912-082-2 28cm. 22p. pbk. 172g. 4/95, X/Open Company Ltd., "File System Safe UCS Transformation Format (FSS_UTF)", X/Open Preleminary Specification, Document Number P316. Also published in Unicode Technical Report #4./
[ISO-10646] ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993. International Standard -- Information technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -- Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane. Five amendments and a technical corrigendum have been published up to now. UTF-8 is described in Annex R, published as Amendment 2. UTF-16 is described in Annex Q, published as Amendment 1. 17 other amendments are currently at various stages of standardization./
[MIME] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045. N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046. K. Moore, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047. N. Freed, J. Klensin, J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC 2048. N. Freed, N. Borenstein, " Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", RFC 2049. All November 1996./
[RFC2152] Goldsmith, D., and M. Davis, "UTF-7: A Mail-safe Transformation Format of Unicode", RFC 1642, Taligent inc., May 1997. (Obsoletes RFC1642)/
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard -- Version 2.0", Addison-Wesley, 1996./
[US-ASCII] Coded Character Set--7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
