On 2015-08-01 03:59, Barry Leiba wrote: > ... > Right. The best way to handle this particular situation isn't to make > this "update" 7231, but to add this to [RFC7231] in the reference > field for status code 415 in the registry. > ... That's what I'm going to do; it best matches the intent of the document the WG agreed to > On the other hand, let me probe Pete's point a bit: > Someone reads 7231 and sees the definition for 415. That someone > doesn't read this, perhaps because she doesn't know about it. She > also doesn't look at the registry entry, and thus doesn't see the > reference, because, after all, it's clear that 7231 defines 415, so > why would one need to look at the registry entry for 415? > > In a case such as that, "updates" could be useful. I'm ambivalent > about whether we should do that, though -- we are trying to avoid > using "updates" for optional extensions. Right. We would just end up with a huge collection of "updates". Best regards, JulianReceived on Thursday, 13 August 2015 11:58:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:46 UTC