W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: i59

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:44 +0200
Message-ID: <484D71E8.3020203@gmx.de>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>  
>> This copies RFC2817's reg. procedure into P2, Section 5 ("Status Code 
>> and Reason Phrase"), and updates the IANA Considerations and the 
>> Change Log accordingly.
> 
> RFC 2817 says "SHOULD be subject to review in the form of a standards
> track document within the IETF Applications Area.  Any such document
> SHOULD be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates'
> to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1".
> 
> I've problems with 2119 key words in IANA considerations.  What is a

Actually, it's not in the IANA Considerations, but in the Registration 
Procedure.

But besides that, I agree with you on that :-)

> good enough excuse to violate these SHOULDs, and how can IANA decide
> that it really is good enough ?  
> 
> Why on earth does RFC 2817 talk about a specific IETF area ?  What is

Dunno.

> "review in the form of a standards track document" supposed to mean ?
> As *any* standards track document or BCP always has IETF review I try
> to figure out what this says, does it try to rule out BCP ?  What is
> wrong with say experimental IETF RFC registrations ?  
> 
> Let's try to translate the obsolete RFC 2234 language to new RFC 5226
> terms, e.g., "IETF review" + "RFC required" *OR* "standards action".

Please make a proposal.

> Please post the new "IANA considerations" as text/plain when you have
> them, I'm not sure what the XML diff in the tracker really means.

The IANA Considerations did not really change much, what's new would be:

5.1.  Status Code Registry

    The HTTP Status Code Registry defines the name space for the Status-
    Code token in the Status line of an HTTP response.

    Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in
    the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications
    Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of
    either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to this document.

    The registry itself is maintained at
    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>.


BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 18:10:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT