> > [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document > > advanced (This question is to the working group)? > [3] documents existing practice for https However this is still a normative reference, meaning that you need to have this document to understand what is being discussed. That is why I suggested that Eric's document be reviewed by the WG and submitted as a Proposed Standard. > [5] is noted because it defines an HTTP status code - we could remove it > from this document and let them add an entry to the registry we are > creating. > [8] is an expired draft, referenced only because it was the original > description - this document replaces it as far as standards track is > concerned. These are not a problem. -JeffReceived on Monday, 18 October 1999 06:43:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:06 UTC