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@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:32:34 +0100
Message-ID: <528CE422.5010602@gmx.de>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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>
On 2013-11-19 18:53, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>    -- 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.

Wow. I didn't realize that idnits went through that much trouble :-)

> 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....)

Actually, I have checked that before :-). (I look at idnits' output 
before submitting drafts...)

>>>    ** 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.


Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 16:33:10 UTC

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