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

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:42:51 +0100
Message-ID: <528A89DB.1020602@greenbytes.de>
To: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-11-18 22:39, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> Sorry, I should have looked at the comparison, the 'IP address' error is picking up on a section number that went to the next line and does not have Section in front of it.  This is fine.
>
> As for the pre-2008 message, I can't see why that is getting picked up by idnits, but it is just a warning.
>
> The for the third one, in RFC2616, the header says that it 'obsoletes' RFC2068 as opposed to saying it 'updates' RFC2068.  I am not sure how this one should get handled as RFC2068 is listed as obsolete and referencing it may be an issue.  Was there a decision to deprecate this functionality when the RFC was revised?
>
> Maybe either Jari or Barry have an opinion on how to handle the last one.

Whatever happened here happened 14 years ago.

This spec just populates the IANA registry, and RFC 2068 is the latest 
spec that defines LINK and UNLINK.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 21:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC