W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:31:02 +0100
Message-ID: <526E3CE6.2020103@gmx.de>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf@ietf.org
On 2013-10-28 10:21, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
>> I believe that keeping new things in separate specs encourages people
>> to use the registries instead of relying on a specific set of
>> documents to provide the complete picture (today this already is a
>> problem - people believing that things not described on 2616 are not
>> "pure" HTTP).
>
> I suggest using the same STD for the set of documents.  It might lessen
> the above problem over time.

-1.

We have registries for exactly that purpose. They provide much better 
control and granularity than including RFCs into document sets.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 10:31:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC