- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:03:11 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote:
> This copies RFC2817's reg. procedure into P2, Section 5 ("Status Code
> and Reason Phrase"), and updates the IANA Considerations and the
> Change Log accordingly.
RFC 2817 says "SHOULD be subject to review in the form of a standards
track document within the IETF Applications Area. Any such document
SHOULD be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates'
to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1".
I've problems with 2119 key words in IANA considerations. What is a
good enough excuse to violate these SHOULDs, and how can IANA decide
that it really is good enough ?
Why on earth does RFC 2817 talk about a specific IETF area ? What is
"review in the form of a standards track document" supposed to mean ?
As *any* standards track document or BCP always has IETF review I try
to figure out what this says, does it try to rule out BCP ? What is
wrong with say experimental IETF RFC registrations ?
Let's try to translate the obsolete RFC 2234 language to new RFC 5226
terms, e.g., "IETF review" + "RFC required" *OR* "standards action".
Please post the new "IANA considerations" as text/plain when you have
them, I'm not sure what the XML diff in the tracker really means.
Frank
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 18:02:21 UTC