Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 05 August 2014 03:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200FF1B2820 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lPebqLLuz8sm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 245CC1B2807 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XEVqF-0002h7-7V for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:55:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:55:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XEVqF-0002h7-7V@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XEVpj-0001Gs-MQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:54:43 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XEVpi-00061x-MP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:54:43 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.12.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7916850A85; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:54:13 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B8E8069-0B95-451B-93E8-AC0F254BD0C3@mnot.net>
References: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.074, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XEVpi-00061x-MP d7baf4fe732b00d24f5c16ea84c4f0fe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9B8E8069-0B95-451B-93E8-AC0F254BD0C3@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26497
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
There seems to be broad support for this in the WG, Barry. Regards, On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:40 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > In Toronto, we discussed moving RFC7238 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7238> from Experimental to Proposed Standard, now that it is implemented in most browsers. > > The WG in the room seemed to think that doing so is a good idea; anyone here have a reason to believe otherwise? > > See also: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/ > > Cheers, > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Stan… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed … Willy Tarreau
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed … Amos Jeffries
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed … Tony Hansen
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed … Mark Nottingham
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed … Barry Leiba