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

Re: i59

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:18:30 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g2k33o$sf7$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Why on earth does RFC 2817 talk about a specific IETF area ?
> Dunno.

Then let's remove it, I don't want "updates 2026" in 2616bis :-)

>> e.g., "IETF review" + "RFC required" *OR* "standards action".
> Please make a proposal.

Those are two proposals, I try to explain the main differences:

A "standards action" means that an experimental RFC cannot add
new status codes to the status code registry.

An "IETF review" excludes informational or experimental RFCs in
the "independent" (RFC-editor) stream, and it also excludes all
other non-IETF streams.  Both proposals exclude W3C standards.

For obscure status codes of an IETF protocol excluding the W3C 
is no issue, but I'd worry if we try that also for say new HTTP
header fields:  Let's not update RFC 3864 unless we really must.

Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 20:17:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC