|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFCs were approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Draft Rec. X.websec-1 uses XML Media Types discussed in [24] for its data description.
|
|
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=3023
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs, is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs, is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[ASCII] "US-ASCII. Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard/
Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1986, 1986./
/
[CSS] Bos, B., Lie, H.W., Lilley, C. and I. Jacobs, "Cascading/
Style Sheets, level 2 (CSS2) Specification", World Wide/
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-CSS2, May 1998,/
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/./
/
[ISO8859] "ISO-8859. International Standard -- Information/
Processing -- 8-bit Single-Byte Coded Graphic Character/
Sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987",/
1987./
[MathML] Ion, P. and R. Miner, "Mathematical Markup Language/
(MathML) 1.01", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation/
REC-MathML, July 1999, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML/./
/
[PNG] Boutell, T., "PNG (Portable Network Graphics)/
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation/
REC-png, October 1996, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png./
/
[RDF] Lassila, O. and R.R. Swick, "Resource Description/
Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification", World/
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-rdf-syntax,/
February 1999, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/./
/
[RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC/
821, August 1982./
/
[RFC0977] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer/
Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986./
/
[RFC1557] Choi, U., Chon, K. and H. Park, "Korean Character Encoding/
for Internet Messages", RFC 1557, December 1993./
/
[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D./
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",/
RFC 1652, July 1994./
/
[RFC1874] Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December 1995./
/
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail/
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message/
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996./
/
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail/
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,/
November 1996./
/
[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose/
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration/
Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996./
/
[RFC2060] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version/
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996./
/
[RFC2077] Nelson, S., Parks, C. and Mitra, "The Model Primary/
Content Type for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions",/
RFC 2077, January 1997./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[RFC2130] Weider, C., Preston, C., Simonsen, K., Alvestrand, H.,/
Atkinson, R., Crispin, M. and P. Svanberg, "The Report of/
the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29 February - 1 March,/
1996", RFC 2130, April 1997./
/
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO/
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998./
/
[RFC2376] Whitehead, E. and M. Murata, "XML Media Types", RFC 2376,/
July 1998./
/
[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform/
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax.", RFC 2396,/
August 1998./
/
[RFC2413] Weibel, S., Kunze, J., Lagoze, C. and M. Wolf, "Dublin/
Core Metadata for Resource Discovery", RFC 2413, September/
1998./
/
[RFC2445] Dawson, F. and D. Stenerson, "Internet Calendaring and/
Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)", RFC/
2445, November 1998./
/
[RFC2518] Goland, Y., Whitehead, E., Faizi, A., Carter, S. and D./
Jensen, "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring --/
WEBDAV", RFC 2518, February 1999./
/
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,/
Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext/
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999./
/
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,/
June 1999./
/
[RFC2703] Klyne, G., "Protocol-independent Content Negotiation/
Framework", RFC 2703, September 1999./
/
[RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO/
10646", RFC 2781, Februrary 2000./
/
[RFC2801] Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP/
Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000./
[SGML] International Standard Organization, "Information/
Processing -- Text and Office Systems -- Standard/
Generalized Markup Language (SGML)", ISO 8879, October/
1986./
/
[SVG] Ferraiolo, J., "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)", World/
Wide Web Consortium Candidate Recommendation SVG, November/
2000, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG./
/
[XHTML] Pemberton, S. and et al, "XHTML 1.0: The Extensible/
HyperText Markup Language", World Wide Web Consortium/
Recommendation xhtml1, January 2000,/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1./
/
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. and E. Maler,/
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)",/
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml, October/
2000, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml./
/
[XSLT] Clark, J., "XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0", World/
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation xslt, November 1999,/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt./
|
|
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):
|
|
|
None
|
|
