Hi, in Part 2 we currently state for both: "Any document registering new method names should be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to this document." I think we inherited that from RFC2817, Section 7.1. (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1>) IMHO this doesn't make sense; the "updates" relation shouldn't be used just because a specification uses a well-defined extension point that already has a registry. Proposal: remove the requirement from sections 2.1 (method names) and 4.1 (status codes). BR, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:26:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT