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

Patrick McManus <> Thu, 12 January 2017 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060B91294B7 for <>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:14:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p1wLxdQ64yNZ for <>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 415AA12952D for <>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cRnaL-00080W-Mu for; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:11:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:11:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cRnaH-0007zk-Kb for; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:11:01 +0000
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cRna9-0006ab-QN for; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:10:56 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E31AD3A0A9 for <>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:10:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by with SMTP id x49so31589627qtc.2 for <>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:10:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLKJVIJLRHACznfkJUWt/WWmoZhDE/w41lIvp8geq73lO5PxzJ5OH82v3kbnZirMilnMfCha8o6t/a1sg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m53mr8940301qtm.6.1484259030562; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:10:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:10:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick McManus <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:10:30 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ff2e645908d0545ecfc52"
Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.317, BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cRna9-0006ab-QN a273614616ab286a9853938ba7fc0c6b
Subject: Issue 271 of 5987bis - Proposed Standard or Internet Standard?
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33280
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Gentlefolk of the HTTPbis WG -

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. The consensus of the WG is sought.

The intended status of this document is currently listed as "Internet
Standard" (

The other practical status for standards track documents is proposed
standard  - its laid out here and also

The basic guidance is:

      An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of
      technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
      specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
      Internet community.

A list of the ~100 active documents currently bearing STD status can be
found here

I apologize to Julian for not starting this thread earlier, I
procrastinated long enough that we got into the holiday season and then I
decided to defer until everyone's attention returned to work.
Thanks for your input.
-Patrick, chair-hat on