- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:24:45 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13.02.2019 05:22, Mark Nottingham wrote: > During BIS, we had an issue to move RFC2817 to Historic: > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/254 > which we incorporated text for in -16: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 > > However, later on we addressed an earlier issue that Paul raised to make sure we updated 2817: > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/128 > ... with the result that we moved from changing it to Historic to just Updating in -22: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22 > > AIUI the reason for that issue was to assure that the attribution for the HTTPS URI Scheme was properly noted; however, the registry already references 7230 for that purpose. CONNECT is now completely defined in 7230 (and thus core-messaging). > > Is there any other reason to keep 2817 around? AIUI it isn't implemented by any browser, nor used anywhere, and isn't considered good practice any more. Am I forgetting something from that discussion? > > From https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/ -- > >> A document is labelled Historic when what it describes is no longer considered current: no longer recommended for use. > > If people still agree that Historic is the appropriate status, we can create a status-change document to kick that process off. > > Cheers, Sounds right to me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 05:25:18 UTC