Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for the work done on defining this mechanism! I think it's quite
> useful, and I plan to ballot "Yes" as soon as the minor but important issue
> below is fixed.
>
> §6.1:
>
> >  Status:  standard
>
> My reading of RFC 3864 does not allow Experimental RFCs to register HTTP
> header
> fields as "Status: Standard."
>
>
agree that should be experimental