W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:31:02 +0100
Message-ID: <526E3CE6.2020103@gmx.de>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf@ietf.org
On 2013-10-28 10:21, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
>> I believe that keeping new things in separate specs encourages people
>> to use the registries instead of relying on a specific set of
>> documents to provide the complete picture (today this already is a
>> problem - people believing that things not described on 2616 are not
>> "pure" HTTP).
> I suggest using the same STD for the set of documents.  It might lessen
> the above problem over time.


We have registries for exactly that purpose. They provide much better 
control and granularity than including RFCs into document sets.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 10:31:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC