- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 21:38:47 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> This *was* discussed extensively on-list and we came to consensus; those > who are proposing a change here should familiarise themselves with the issues: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/250 > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/251 > … and related list discussion, starting here: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0261.html > … and continuing here: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0262.html > > Even if there does turn out to be an interop problem here, I'm having trouble > seeing how what's being proposed will fit into what the IETF considers to be > an erratum. Indeed. For me, it's a question of whether this should be resolved as "Rejected" or "Held for Document Update". I think "Rejected", because even if this is an issue that should be revisited, the errata system isn't meant as an issue tracker. And it's clear that this doesn't fall into the category of errata. Regardless of whether the issue needs to be looked at again: does anyone really think that, from an errata-system standpoint, this should NOT be "Rejected"? Barry
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 20:39:14 UTC