- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:14:13 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> There seems to be broad support for this in the WG, Barry. Great. The only thing about using the status-change document for this, as has come up in the apps-discuss conversation about moving RFC 1846 from Experimental to Standards Track, is that the Experimental document has this boilerplate in it: This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. This is in contrast with the boilerplate for Standards Tack documents: This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Unless we really want to experiment with the process and try using the status-change document to give us a Proposed Standard with boilerplate that says it's Experimental, I suggest this: - Julian knocks off a quick draft-ietf-httpbis-7238-to-ps draft, which is exactly the same as the RFC except for the intended status. - Mark approves it as a working group document, and immediately does a quick shepherd writeup and publication request. - If we do this tout de suite, we can get it approved on the 4 Sept telechat, which will be even faster than with the status-change document. Barry > On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:40 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > >> In Toronto, we discussed moving RFC7238 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7238> >> from Experimental to Proposed Standard, now that it is implemented in most >> browsers. >> >> The WG in the room seemed to think that doing so is a good idea; anyone >> here have a reason to believe otherwise? >> >> See also: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2014 15:14:40 UTC