Re: HTTP response version, again

Roy T. Fielding:
>[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.

They have no legislative power in the literal sense, but people who
ignore part of an IETF spec _do_ tend to get labeled as criminals.

All I've been saying is that AOL's `crime' is not as big as it was
made out to be.  And yes, the status of the RFC they ignored part of
_is_ relevant to this argument.

>.....Roy

Koen.

Received on Friday, 3 January 1997 15:15:23 UTC