Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 28 July 2014 02:45 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 649F71A0004 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:45:07 -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 WISl5DwXhVQQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:45:05 -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 69C8D1A0008 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XBas5-00075G-2a for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:41:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:41:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XBas5-00075G-2a@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XBarj-000746-KC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:40:43 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XBari-0002jZ-Qt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:40:43 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.32.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E65F222E1F3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:40:15 +1000
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.119, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XBari-0002jZ-Qt 30b5de54ebf8bfa7b15122aec1d55bbc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26404
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>
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/ Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- 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