- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:38:24 -0700
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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 UTC