W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:23:59 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199612272124.WAA12873@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2251
Roy T. Fielding:
>[Koen Holtman:]
>> Correcting an error in my own message: RFC1945 is not even `best
>> current practice', it ended up being `informational'.  This gives it
>> even less legislative power.  To quote RFC1602:
>>               An "Informational" specification is published for the
>>               general information of the Internet community, and does
>>               not represent an Internet community consensus or
>>               recommendation.
>And, as I said before, that is irrelevant.  There is no legislative
>power in any IETF specs, even full standards.

They have no legislative power in the literal sense, but people who
ignore part of an IETF spec _do_ tend to get labeled as criminals.

All I've been saying is that AOL's `crime' is not as big as it was
made out to be.  And yes, the status of the RFC they ignored part of
_is_ relevant to this argument.


Received on Friday, 3 January 1997 15:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC