Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Mon, 28 July 2014 05:46 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 B54841A0063 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:46:42 -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 cFT8poEw9CXJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:46:39 -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 590001A005D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XBdjF-0000Qo-7c for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:44:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:44:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XBdjF-0000Qo-7c@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1XBdj2-0000LJ-UO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:43:56 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1XBdj1-0002Et-RL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:43:56 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (121-99-50-90.bng1.tvc.orcon.net.nz [121.99.50.90]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A69E6F16 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:43:22 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <53D5E2F7.6060303@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:43:19 +1200
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.489, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XBdj1-0002Et-RL 3cf4f55a0bed39db7345cda220f8566b
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/53D5E2F7.6060303@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26406
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>
On 28/07/2014 2:40 p.m., Mark Nottingham 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/ > I support this. Amos
- 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