Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 10 August 2014 15:18 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 2A9A91A0757 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 ZfJXS73hR1Gi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:18:20 -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 3C8701A0756 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XGUpm-0006hc-Qa for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XGUpm-0006hc-Qa@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>) id 1XGUpU-0006fx-Ip for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:40 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>) id 1XGUpT-00012N-PK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:40 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l13so3122874iga.13 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GQJMlPupvhqETjl5aRg0dFoQ6QEUTfMqGOYrWqCZ+A4=; b=SdF8V0PBru6bHBEcFVRO83UFwch9RbQGhI8rMbiljXy01/atTM2YShIZ9TQ/ETeYun O6aJO8YTxSb8XII65wnOa0wW1+4tAaxneaZZQJUbv7KmhJuyhbBHayiZ97bn3dY8HmIW t7bWjtPEdPryEP2awSt47c79huLbgLTqobnTo6Lc9LYn7a5EsaKfnijLWR8Uq6I57q5I dAt7vNfvORkrP4Teq0lqySXnrIm4WWgs4Qu0ls+wA9sPAc2dj7rNJUIZOheRqxwADct9 DCy4iFCs9CXCpyF8dc9XlpgGnnDGCNdtJ5tLFOt7r4lrI/HAlZe1Bj66skxBDaOamYfT CKfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.143.73 with SMTP id sc9mr21923752igb.29.1407683653623; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.163.148 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9B8E8069-0B95-451B-93E8-AC0F254BD0C3@mnot.net>
References: <0A6AA9B1-90EA-40D9-8CA3-4566DB7F9F2B@mnot.net> <9B8E8069-0B95-451B-93E8-AC0F254BD0C3@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:14:13 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2lstKQKviW_1Qk1mOrmnK26KdsA
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAtHjCQfhja0G-LgnZRB1BA8nVQxcX1bHe4wJmtwkio8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.706, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XGUpT-00012N-PK 65b825b0d256b63d484760f9c1d78b1d
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/CAC4RtVAtHjCQfhja0G-LgnZRB1BA8nVQxcX1bHe4wJmtwkio8w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26583
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>

> There seems to be broad support for this in the WG, Barry.

Great.  The only thing about using the status-change document for
this, as has come up in the apps-discuss conversation about moving RFC
1846 from Experimental to Standards Track, is that the Experimental
document has this boilerplate in it:

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

This is in contrast with the boilerplate for Standards Tack documents:

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Unless we really want to experiment with the process and try using the
status-change document to give us a Proposed Standard with boilerplate
that says it's Experimental, I suggest this:

- Julian knocks off a quick draft-ietf-httpbis-7238-to-ps draft, which
is exactly the same as the RFC except for the intended status.
- Mark approves it as a working group document, and immediately does a
quick shepherd writeup and publication request.
- If we do this tout de suite, we can get it approved on the 4 Sept
telechat, which will be even faster than with the status-change
document.

Barry



> On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:40 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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/