- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:57:34 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, lawrence@agranat.com, rohit@4K-associates.com
Looks good to me. On 08/06/2009, at 11:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 02:58:11 UTC