Re: Issue 271 of 5987bis - Proposed Standard or Internet Standard?

Personal hat -

I'd prefer Proposed Standard; I don't think we want to overly promote the use of this encoding in new header fields, so calling it an Internet Standard sends the wrong message. 

In particular, if we do come up with a better solution, there will be that awkward phase (perhaps years) when this one will be full standard, and the "better" one will be only Proposed.

Finally, I don't think it meets the criteria in 2026.

I'm not lie-down-in-the-road against this (they're just words, after all); just a preference.


> On 13 Jan 2017, at 9:10 am, Patrick McManus <> wrote:
> Gentlefolk of the HTTPbis WG -
> I need to direct your attention to one of just two open issues with the 5987bis document (Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters), which deals with the intended status of the eventual RFC. The consensus of the WG is sought.
> The intended status of this document is currently listed as "Internet Standard" ( )
> The other practical status for standards track documents is proposed standard  - its laid out here and also in
> The basic guidance is:
>       An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of
>       technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
>       specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
>       Internet community.
> A list of the ~100 active documents currently bearing STD status can be found here
> I apologize to Julian for not starting this thread earlier, I procrastinated long enough that we got into the holiday season and then I decided to defer until everyone's attention returned to work.
> Thanks for your input.
> -Patrick, chair-hat on

Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 16 January 2017 01:29:56 UTC