Re: HTTP response version, again

• From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
• Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:34:05 -0800
• To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9612270334.aa14090@paris.ics.uci.edu>

[Koen Holtman:]
> Correcting an error in my own message: RFC1945 is not even `best
> current practice', it ended up being `informational'.  This gives it
> even less legislative power.  To quote RFC1602:
> 
>               An "Informational" specification is published for the
>               general information of the Internet community, and does
>               not represent an Internet community consensus or
>               recommendation.

And, as I said before, that is irrelevant.  There is no legislative
power in any IETF specs, even full standards.  RFC 1945 is not a
proposed standard because we wanted HTTP/1.1 to be the proposed standard
for HTTP, and the IETF has no process for recognizing protocol families.
Nevertheless, the IETF did decide, via both the recommendation of this WG
and the IESG, that RFC 1945 does define HTTP/1.0.  Aside from "Obsolete"
or "Updated", the document status is not relevant to its meaning.

.....Roy

Received on Friday, 27 December 1996 03:39:57 UTC