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

Re: i59

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:23:17 +0200
Message-ID: <484E8045.4020002@gmx.de>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

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 :-)

Yes. it doesn't make sense.

>>> 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.

The registry contains several status codes defined in Experimental RFCs 
(RFC2295 and RFC2774). Of course that doesn't tell us that the intent of 
the authors of RFC2817 was...

> 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.

I think that comes close to that RFC2817 intended to say, so I would 
propose to use that language for now. (If people feel that it should be 
easier to register new status codes we should treat that as a separate 

> 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.

No, there's (AFAIK) no intent to change the header registration.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 13:23:59 UTC

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