IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 13 January 2017 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087E4129AA4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 b4TNtWakbC7q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3A901293F2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cRvUo-0002yg-0f for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:37:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:37:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cRvUo-0002yg-0f@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1cRvUl-0002xW-NW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:37:51 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1cRvUe-0008LT-DV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:37:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.74.175]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lxu7U-1cXRFd3J36-015Lu3; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:37:13 +0100
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
References: <CAOdDvNr==BmizwUPKaMZq__UckfM5bAJ0w15=A-R1xrtZ+JxjA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVw9K4DiRySgSjbYcxkEyAqxU9DU3dw4e4+vpEk6ff5Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <fb8bc334-c0d5-0787-7289-730281d05f42@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:37:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVw9K4DiRySgSjbYcxkEyAqxU9DU3dw4e4+vpEk6ff5Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:r+BDAHgDVPsd3kH90YzB371eb449JfXTz0NT3H7AVh6Bc9r195F sD+FsOELFBypHXyoS60S9aU7Vq8sLrqhQLG8WMaonrSH30QSz0gDtdEKFWNuUx/ZAZVdPk0 XuEmPFp/lS63DMyl4xoOb/pB8ul0/yPYFItYoj2vMonDmQWUeHoZ/cQCcoximUMX2cF7Ppw Yzy6kKq5hK9mLeVbtUmtA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MmIgbSCdtuw=:1yar//VLdtsX3x5TpR3qgJ 7emXp536E7BVmea81rWTr2KjO2aoY+W/fqwJa5Wrycl6acmVZ1DjHmQGqCqAAgH35MsFiRIVr EqsSBEOWZlXo3v4tKO2P33lceDrGEXBbKru3Xz3wc3HdNqofzNT0rl68NeX456Z7ZE7LTBrFk ZiQ6Zx76YevUkMxWF5Fsy3UKVNouQFvO4cL8Zu0TNIRgqTrQGnB16Ta2SVrN2VorpIgt/UGIn FsTimxnP87NmEC1g7SNooxYbctpkpaBnznYu7ldBsIayR+Ikcand2uZGTQZ2Fzg1bLNTtu/3L 4hXp19Te6m7vxQ+1wecu8n6JIx2kDZa92b4y8gocEOfzFr9tzXLMFypKPNMnGKTWbPvKJUQw6 sdLHl7peZ6Fa2EEPPjwyslGj9e76CHz/5zTRLhHtVwBv44vryb7pt6XciHwVtMd//VnqW9IBp EpRxIPpdNLNXZANtwYwtaE4udbzsuzzH+7lxJa+rL7y4dKI0yYjGNVEWxTf5bGpCy4lNHilLy zzLQpH8wB75bdOGi5rPu7uXT2jgyeyROb9K0R3/VtLRmqkXbXGODWpXFLSRLHqyJZfEodGkYv jISAUZfij03lMSLiw3CmThUJApj8AO9ZTH2VG+JJf94coFB9oUjcH5WxflbVeGoGrbNwOSQH/ 2KmWjy4qPPce4OWiO44SP89xuhj0GekNAx6w3kEMi0zqxSeXP2GseytBIab9Kn5dMxsXOn0mv 7x+TwWD0iY0csZZk6J/4CTwCcSsEro4Z8kGMKjd85zw5sm31JRhWAR6LhXxtU7CqwGoKkqVcp 80QF0dyAh+pKDI2GE389w4bTRKwTgT5xbRAI5ScMpBKN6IbyTOPiUVLK8Mm/rw9dPp/xrUI6D IHvjCk22KYlZyvY4lyxBclWFbs2NACFL6r194G8OFKdZ7d/My7q0rHiu+asDV4UorszbWDtuC 2v/qPPw5bg2OS2qBdTC0qhbGz4vzn7o3K2RaHjfZhbR7asxhD83gjMGlP7lf7Y3ROWr5tZuid DZPIERD9ZFM5D5ywlSwC4+CmgaOjQ/jve4iZw+hPRR+aN48OWdhhx52eAb/NGB9EuQ==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.591, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cRvUe-0008LT-DV 0332cb6d4bc295aaa08795f8274c082b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 271 of 5987bis - Proposed Standard or Internet Standard?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/fb8bc334-c0d5-0787-7289-730281d05f42@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33282
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 2017-01-13 02:18, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 13 January 2017 at 11:10, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> 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.

I don't care a lot - it won't matter in practice.

That said, the standards process doesn't make this requirement. If we 
ever want to get spec to "full standard", adding *additional* hurdles 
doesn't seem to be the right approach.

(And yes, we should work on getting HTTP-the-base-specs to full standard 
as well)

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email