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

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

Thanks all for the thoughtful replies.  I believe we have consensus for
moving this document forward as a Proposed Standard. I will make the change
in datatracker and leave it to the editor to make the change in the draft.
-Patrick


On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
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.
>
> 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
>