Re: Issue 271 of 5987bis - Proposed Standard or Internet Standard?

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> I need to direct your attention to one of just two open issues with the
>> 5987bis document (Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header
>> Field Parameters), which deals with the intended status of the eventual RFC.
>
> Proposed Standard would seem to be sufficient.  I would think that
> being MORE mature than HTTP would be unrealistic, so that limits us to
> PS.

Indeed... and beyond "unrealistic", at least somewhat against IETF
process.  The document has 7230 and 7231 as normative references, so
they would qualify as "downrefs" if we should try for Internet
Standard.  We do have a process -- documented in RFC 3967 -- that
allows downrefs if they are called out explicitly in last call, but
that is mostly used for referencing informational documents for
terminology and such.  3967 is pretty clear that it should *not* be
used in lieu of moving the less-mature references up in maturity
first.

We should move the HTTP 1.1 set up to IS before we start trying to
make other HTTP-related standards IS.

Barry