- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:00:27 +0200
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
Frank Ellermann wrote: > ... > Reading it again, RFC 3864 from start to end tries to explain > why *redefining* MIME Content-* header fields in individual > protocols can be a seriously flawed idea. And it says that > the "status" for a permanent entry is set according to the > primary document defining it. > > IMO for a standards track RFC the default should be "standard". > Obviously it can be "deprecated" when the standard(s) say so, > e.g., "Lines". Maybe a standard can also say "informational", > but I think it's not the intention of RFC 3834: > > Forwarding to the message header list, Graham would know what > RFC 3864 wanted, and if a minor twist is okay or confusing. > ... Thanks. I just want to make sure that there is consistency; and RFC2616 currently makes it clear that although it contains documentation about C-D, it's not to be considered part of the HTTP standard. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 12:01:10 UTC