Re: Moving 2817 to Historic

Mark,

HTTP Upgrade is used by IPP/1.1 [STD92] and IPP/2.0 [PWG Standard 5100.12] for opportunistic TLS and has been supported and used by CUPS for about 20 years.  I would NOT be in favor of marking it historic.

The problematic part of HTTP Upgrade has always been proxy support, which killed it for general web browser use but not for local network services.


> On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:22 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:06:08 UTC