Re: Proposed Erratum for RFC 2817, was: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names

Looks good to me.

On 08/06/2009, at 11:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> related to <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/170>,  
> I'd like to propose that we submit an erratum to RFC 2817, related  
> to the HTTP Status Code registry, as soon as the HTTPbis drafts  
> containing "our" resolution to issue 170 are published.
>
> The proposed erratum is:
>
> """
> Section 4., paragraph 1:
> OLD:
>
>    Values to be added to this name space 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
>    [1].
>
> NEW:
>
>    Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review
>    ([12], Section 4.1).
>
> (where [12] would refer to RFC 5226 in the References Section)
>
> Notes:
>
> Since RFC 2817 was published, it has become harder to publish non-WG  
> documents on the Standards Track. The "IETF review" policy is  
> defined in RFC 5226 as:
>
>      IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
>            [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
>            RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
>            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
>            intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
>            be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
>            experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
>            ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
>            impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
>            in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
>
>            To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
>            shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
>            documents with an IETF Last Call.
>
> which should address this nicely.
>
> Furthermore, overloading the "Updates" relation for specifications  
> that use a well-defined extension point plus an IANA registry is  
> misleading.
>
> """
>
> Feedback appreciated,
>
> Julian
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/