Re: Final (?) procedural question.

Of course, I'm fighting with Word to generate the ascii....  Sigh...
Never again....

I note that if the reference is non-normative, we can't say SHOULD.
                              - Jim

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 14:30, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> > As I think I mentioned before, the IETF revised policies on us
> > in RFC 2434, in the time between when we submitted the draft
> > standard and its approval.  No one noticed this change at the time.
> >
> > In sections 3.5 and 3.6 of we define content and transfer coding
> > values that require registration.
> >
> > RFC 2435 requires us to specify whether new values need to
> > be reviewed, for what purpose and/or if they need approval.
> > We are silent on the approval process.
> It might also be a good idea to point out (in the revised version
> of RFC2616) that there is a <soon-to-be?> BCP
> 	"Registration procedures for message header fields"
> 	Klyne, Nottingham, Mogul
> According to the IETF ID Tracker, the IESG has approved an earlier
> draft as a BCP (back in May) but there are some minor revisions
> that require "AD followup".  I think it would be safe to add a
> non-normative reference, given that this ID is far enough through
> the IESG process that it should have an RFC number long before
> the Full Standard for HTTP/1.1 could be an RFC.  (Yes, it might
> be naive to trust the IESG process this much.)
> I would suggest putting something in 4.2 (Message Headers)
> along the lines of:
> 	All HTTP header field-names SHOULD be registered
> 	according to the procedure in [draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07].
> I believe that one of my co-authors on this I-D has already
> prepared an initial list of field-names including fields from
> all extant HTTP-related RFCs.
> -Jeff
Jim Gettys <>
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:06:56 UTC