W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Moving 2817 to Historic

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:24:45 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bd38b2a2-dd55-1bc1-6a5b-b90026473319@gmx.de>
On 13.02.2019 05:22, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> During BIS, we had an issue to move RFC2817 to Historic:
>    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/254
> which we incorporated text for in -16:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16
> 
> However, later on we addressed an earlier issue that Paul raised to make sure we updated 2817:
>    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/128
> ... with the result that we moved from changing it to Historic to just Updating in -22:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22
> 
> AIUI the reason for that issue was to assure that the attribution for the HTTPS URI Scheme was properly noted; however, the registry already references 7230 for that purpose. CONNECT is now completely defined in 7230 (and thus core-messaging).
> 
> Is there any other reason to keep 2817 around? AIUI it isn't implemented by any browser, nor used anywhere, and isn't considered good practice any more. Am I forgetting something from that discussion?
> 
>  From https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/ --
> 
>> A document is labelled Historic when what it describes is no longer considered current: no longer recommended for use.
> 
> If people still agree that Historic is the appropriate status, we can create a status-change document to kick that process off.
> 
> Cheers,

Sounds right to me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 05:25:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 13 February 2019 05:25:20 UTC