W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Proposed Erratum for RFC 2817, was: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:07:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2D0D27.7050109@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, lawrence@agranat.com, rohit@4K-associates.com
Hi,

related to <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/170>, I'd 
like to propose that we submit an erratum to RFC 2817, related to the 
HTTP Status Code registry, as soon as the HTTPbis drafts containing 
"our" resolution to issue 170 are published.

The proposed erratum is:

"""
Section 4., paragraph 1:
OLD:

     Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in
     the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications
     Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of
     either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1
     [1].

NEW:

     Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review
     ([12], Section 4.1).

(where [12] would refer to RFC 5226 in the References Section)

Notes:

Since RFC 2817 was published, it has become harder to publish non-WG 
documents on the Standards Track. The "IETF review" policy is defined in 
RFC 5226 as:

       IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
             [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
             RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
             Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
             intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
             be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
             experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
             ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
             impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
             in an inappropriate or damaging manner.

             To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
             shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
             documents with an IETF Last Call.

which should address this nicely.

Furthermore, overloading the "Updates" relation for specifications that 
use a well-defined extension point plus an IANA registry is misleading.

"""

Feedback appreciated,

Julian
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 13:08:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT