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

Re: i59

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:38:24 -0700
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3588F184-7775-413E-8811-660BC85A2E88@osafoundation.org>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>


On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>
> 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.

Some (most?) Informational documents do go for IETF Review.  But I  
agree it would exclude independent and other non-IETF streams.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Frank
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 20:39:10 GMT

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