W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2021

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:42:33 +0100
Message-ID: <0698d726-4d12-4354-8829-0ccf0c0af448@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 23.11.2021 um 00:03 schrieb Martin Thomson:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021, at 04:34, Cory Benfield wrote:
>> Status code 421 is now defined in the -semantics draft of the core
>> specifications:
>> https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#status.421.
> As two of these comments are the result of changes related to updates to the HTTP semantics draft, maybe we should feature that in the change log.  We don't need to list the specific changes.  There are quite a few changes there, but they are all editorial in nature - someone who implemented RFC 7540 won't need to concern themselves with the details of the changes.
> https://github.com/httpwg/http2-spec/pull/989


>> The registries seems like a better case. I think I'll have to defer to
>> the more experienced RFC editors here: I'm not sure whether the
>> deference to the registries defined in RFC 7540 requires us to make
>> the reference normative.
> The advice I've received is that the IANA Considerations section is a point-in-time set of instructions to IANA.  As such, it doesn't need to be complete, it just needs to capture the critical changes.  As the registries are not critical to the understanding of the protocol, I don't think a normative reference is necessary.
> Separately, I don't think that you should - or even can - obsolete a document and then normatively reference it.

Well stated.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 06:42:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:06 UTC