Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Mon, 28 July 2014 13:46 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 852EC1B27FC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:46:30 -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 ZF5PpkO5YGOW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:46:29 -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 85F351B2806 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XBlDg-0001Dc-Q7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:44:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:44:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XBlDg-0001Dc-Q7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tony@att.com>) id 1XBlDR-00016y-6S for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:43:49 +0000
Received: from egssmtp01.att.com ([144.160.112.12]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tony@att.com>) id 1XBlDP-0007r8-G5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:43:49 +0000
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp01.att.com ( egs 8.14.5 TLS/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6SDhGmR002492 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:43:18 -0500
Received: from vpn-135-70-102-202.vpn.swst.att.com ([135.70.102.202]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20140728134316gw100j0cn2e>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:43:16 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.102.202]
Message-ID: <53D65373.2080706@att.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:43:15 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none client-ip=144.160.112.12; envelope-from=tony@att.com; helo=egssmtp01.att.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.166, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XBlDP-0007r8-G5 938738a4df988401ab43377ec23e42d6
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/53D65373.2080706@att.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26411
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 7/27/14, 10:40 PM, 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/ +1 Tony Hansen
- 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