Re: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 07 May 2013 16:51 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EF821F901A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OxqpKGrS3ynb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6CA21F8EAA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZl6G-0000Z0-Rz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:50:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 16:50:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZl6G-0000Z0-Rz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UZl65-0000YH-2A for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:50:37 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UZl63-0003GA-Sg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:50:36 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.19]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LwkgY-1UTK0H3uXo-016N76 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 18:50:10 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2013 16:50:09 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 07 May 2013 18:50:09 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18OX6IoVFwOW+YZ/UfxmGpESK6zUuNziCfV4ZKc7R z8G+LWUEBA5RNB
Message-ID: <518930C2.4050302@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 18:50:10 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <BBC3AF8C-03C1-4A1E-B406-7DCE44AB4B0E@mnot.net> <2E4BC2C5-1F9E-4CAC-A926-40640183FE98@mnot.net> <517D44F1.7060009@gmx.de> <9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net> <517FB27D.5020703@gmx.de> <E7A0539A-AFC1-49F5-8220-45057736F0B3@adobe.com> <1976FE49-D9AC-4678-8668-0357861955A8@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <1976FE49-D9AC-4678-8668-0357861955A8@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.391, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UZl63-0003GA-Sg 262248b4eeab4b19c451aa07e5060477
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/518930C2.4050302@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17866
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 2013-05-01 01:29, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Let's move p6 and p7's sections, then.
> ...

Done, plus some more cleanup to make things more consistent across 
documents.

While doing so, I noticed we didn't have required fields for status code 
definitions; I have added:

>    A registration MUST include the following fields:
>
>    o  Status Code (3 digits)
>
>    o  Short Description
>
>    o  Pointer to specification text

(consistent with warn codes).

Best regards, Julian