W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

References (was: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:11:15 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <fhrr6o$m4t$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

 [Host: MUSTard in ch. 9]
> My proposal would be to move it to a place where it makes more sense.


 [STD, DS, PS, or "let's see what happens" ?]
> <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/httpbis-charter.html> says DS.

Ugh, I never looked into the "goals" before.

> I'm not sure that we have given up hope to reach STD, but that would
> require making some stuff downrefs (such as MIME and the compression
> schemes).

RFC 1950 up to 1952 are informational, if you want them as "normative"
that's anyway a downref.

You can replace 2048 by 4288 + 4289, as BCP that would be no downref.
RFC 1766 is now RFC 4646, also a BCP.  No idea what "H.5" tries to say.

RFC 1864 is a DS (didn't know this, funny), if you need an STD we could
try to promote it.  Nobody's going to modify Content-MD5, my crystal-
ball says.

RFC 2396 is now 3986 (STD 66).  RFC822ABNF will go (4234bis is an STD).
I think that leaves 2617bis, 2822upd, and the rest of MIME as downrefs.

BTW, the draft mentions WAIS (the protocol), RFC 4156 says that WAIS
(the URI-scheme) is "historic".  How about removing that cruft ?

Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 11:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC