- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:13:39 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1, I think. AFAIK there isn't any advice to do this for documents that establish registries (e.g., in RFC5226). On 03/06/2009, at 8:26 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi, > > in Part 2 we currently state for both: > > "Any document registering new method names should be traceable > through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to this document." > > I think we inherited that from RFC2817, Section 7.1. (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1 > >) > > IMHO this doesn't make sense; the "updates" relation shouldn't be > used just because a specification uses a well-defined extension > point that already has a registry. > > Proposal: remove the requirement from sections 2.1 (method names) > and 4.1 (status codes). > > BR, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 11:14:16 UTC