Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-04-13 21:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-04-13 20:52, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> On 10/04/2012 14:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-10 15:18, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Not sure I see any need for a normative reference though.
>>>>
>>>> (I've mentioned my opinion to Julian, but I would like to state it for
>>>> the record.)
>>>> I think an update to RFC 2616 should have a reference to
>>>> draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset and make it clear that the
>>>> previous default was removed. An Informative reference to
>>>> draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset should be fine.
>>>
>>> HTTPbis *does* make it clear that the default (overriding the base
>>> spec) was removed.
>>>
>>> What's not clear to me is why it would need to reference
>>> draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset.
>> People who only read/implemented RFC 2616 need to be told that the rules
>> changed. Similarly for people who read/implemented RFC 2046. Navigating
>> through the maze of RFCs obsoleting each other is difficult for people
>> who don't deal with them on a daily basis (and it is non trivial even
>> for people who do). A reference to
>> draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset would help with that.
>
> I'm still not convinced.
>
> HTTPbis removes the default, and states so in the "Changes from RFC
> 2616" section. How does a reference to
> draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset make things better?
> ...

Proposal: remove the comment in draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset. 
People who feel strongly about httpbis citing 
draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset should actually raise this in 
the HTTPbis WG (I'm editor of both documents so I don't have a *problem* 
adding the reference, I just don't see what it's good for :-).

Best regards, Julian