- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:46:17 +0100
- To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
On 2014-12-30 11:31, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Thanks Julian, > >>> 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. > > So I'm wondering what "initial" means in this context. For an experimental RFC I interpret it as "while this is an experimental extension". For a PS it sounds like "when you first deploy this do foo, but after you've been running your network for 6 months you can transition to something else." > > I don't think you mean that. In a PS, I think you mean to delete "initial" from this text. I don't think so. Whether we change the status of RFC 7238 doesn't change deployment reality at all. Whatever we wrote in it depends on what deployed software does, not on the classification of the document. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2014 10:46:53 UTC