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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:53:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJJx-n3SLyO7YckOgY=mLSjbrbgn5QEAriWoZxooX+gTDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, "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>
>>   -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
>>      have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
>>      have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
>>      the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
>>      this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
>>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
>
> No, it doesn't (why does idnits think so?)

Oh, geez, you really want to know?

Look at the history of the document:
- Up through version -02, it was marked as "updates httpbis part 2".
- httpbis part 2 version -00 was posted before RFC 5378.
- The current version of httpbis part 2 does not include all the
authors that were included in the -00 version.

Through some combination of that history, it's possible that this
document has text from httpbis part 2 version -00, and that not all
the original authors have signed off on that.

So idnits is just raising a flag.  As it says, if this isn't a
problem, then it isn't a problem.  Kathleen was just pointing out that
idnits raised the flag, and asked you to check.

You checked.  All is well.  (We all have to remember that idnits is
only a tool....)

>>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2068 (Obsoleted by RFC 2616)
>
> RFC 2068 currently is the only document that defines LINK/UNLINK. The only
> thing we can do here is to declare all references in the registrations to be
> informative, but I really really don't see why it would matter here.

Again, only a tool.  This is not an issue.  We have references to
obsolete documents periodically, and that's fine.  This is fine.  On
the other hand, we have many occasions where documents become obsolete
after they're put in as references, so it's good to check.

Again, you checked, and all is well.  No need to wrap ourselves around
that further.

Barry
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 17:53:33 UTC

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