- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:19:32 +0100
- To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
On 2014-12-30 10:58, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for > status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd make an argument that the Standards Track version of this work > should be an Update of 7231 since it changes a statement made in that > RFC. > > --- > > 7238 says... > > Therefore, initial use of status code 308 will be restricted to cases > where the server has sufficient confidence in the client's > understanding the new code or when a fallback to the semantics of > status code 300 is not problematic. > > How is this text valid in the Standards Track revision of this document? It reflects reality, so it is valid, no matter how the document is published. If the spec was revised for publication as Proposed Standard, we'd likely keep this information. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2014 10:20:09 UTC